it's the only game i ever played where i would blink once, and it wuld be 6 am, blink again, and it would 6 pm. i had to bend and break the disc in order to have a life
"just one more turn" always turns into 500 more turns
that's some serious video crack right there that game
1. middle class to upper middle class 2. suburban, or if urban, living in a low crime area
meanwhile, if you actually go to newark, and ask a sampling of residents their opinion: cameras, gunshot microphones, etc.: that's 100% welcome for them. its funny how the constant threat of violence reorients what your concepts of freedom and invasion of privacy mean. ie, to mean: freedom from street violence, and no invasion of your privacy by street thugs
i hate to say it, but a lot of what slashdotters consider to be the real debate on the concepts of freedom and privacy is actually a luxury that the poor of the world would consider alien. the hackneyed line "he who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security" is frankly, wrong. not morally wrong, logically wrong. for without security, a lot of that which you take for granted, including your entire ideological and political agenda, would not be possible. you can't educate, you can't earn a good income, you can't have peace of mind, you can't have civilization and progress without security
security is the foundation of society. societies with low crime and high security and societal stability have higher incomes and greater standards of living. please get the cause and effect here right: security makes this possible. a lot of money does not make crime go down. pushing crime down, makes standards of living go up. you simply can't build the more involved societal environments necessary for higher riches. you must have law and order, or society will break down in economically measurable ways, and in measurable quality of life ways, including respect for your rights and freedoms
how do you make poor areas of the world rich? the first thing you do, is you give them a highly secure environment. and in a society with high security, other freedoms and higher concepts of civilization can begin to be addressed. the concepts the average slashdotter concerns themselves with when thinking about freedom and privacy are impossible to address in a society without any security. the security must come first. please recognize that: security comes first, is of paramount importance. its upon that foundation of security that makes the debate, that you consider of paramount importance, even possible. the truth of course is that your entire ideological and political agenda fall secondary to the need for a high security environment
many of you disregard and belittle the concept that makes your entire mindset possible. you forget your foundation, and thereby serve to undermine your own set of concerns
now mod me into oblivion and consider me a fearmongerer and freedom destroyer. go ahead, shoot the messenger. i am merely describing common sense attributes of the realit you live in, but you don't like to hear it
i don't care if you reject this message. the average slashdotter is, frankly, out of touch with reality
meanwhile, the residents of newark know exactly what i am talking about
disregarding or belittling the concept of security for people whose daily security is a constant issue, simply makes them disregard you, as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. and they are right about you on that point
ossetia is considered georgian territory by many valid measurements. it also contains people who do not want to be a part of georgia. similiar to east timor, or kosovo
so ok, let the ossetians be free
as if these were the only considerations
other considerations:
1. these ossetian considerations equally match chechnya, whose fight for freedom russia has crushed. do you support chechnya as a free and independent state form russia, on the principles of your support for osssetian independence from georgia? by your rationale, russia should give up chechnya. do you agree with that?
2. furthermore, in the case of kosovo, and east timor, separation was achieved by broad spectrum international support, and a peaceful vote. in the case of ossetia, russia did a sneak attack, on a region it has been involved imperialistically for centuries. do you think the comparison is still valid
3. and finally. what exactly is russia's motivations again?:
study your history in the caucasus. anyone who thinks what is going on here is anything more than an old-style imperialistic landgrab that should be universally denounced by anyone interested in progress in this world is an utter fool
so if a boyfriend says to a girlfriend that if she wears a certain dress he will hit her, and then the girlfriend's friend encourages her to wear the dress anyways, and she gets hit, in your eyes, the friend who encouraged the girfriend is the ultimate culprit?
here's an idea: the scumbag who hits his girlfriend for wearing a certain dress is the ultimate vulprit
and in the caucasus, russia's imperial proving ground for more centuries than the usa has existed, you're telling me the usa is the ultimate culprit?
if the usa gave georgia a goddamn aircraft carrier, russia, russia alone is responsible for invading georgia
or do you believe the line the boyfriend probably fed his girlfriend:
"Under your reasoning, cosmetic surgery for movie stars (or anyone who seeks fame/fortune) would not be allowed because it enhances their performance onscreen."
cosmetic surgery is well-understood in terms of risks/ complications
you want to depend upon the crystal clear ultraresponsible reasoning skills of 19 year olds with reams of cash and power and fame and women when offered procedures of unknown side-effects
you can't think of an example where we allow people to take those kinds of risks for the sake of frivolous entertainment because such an example doesn't exist: unlike you, people understand how they have a responsibility in this area
"You want to limit what people can and can't do with their own bodies because you think they will become arrogant to their own peril."
this is laughable
#1: what people are doing with their bodies is directly related to what they are getting out of my interaction with what they do with those bodies. i am involved. i can't pretend i'm not
#2: i don't think they will become arrogantr to their own peril, i KNOW they will
we are talking about teenagers, these athletes. you had 100% solid reasoning skills in regard to taking care of yourself when you were 19? if fame money chicks and power were thrown at you?
you wish to absolve me, and yourself, if the responsibility of what people do to themselves BECAUSE OF WHAT WE OFFER THEM FOR DOING THAT
you can't remove yourself from the equation. these deicsions aren't bering made in a vacuum. they are being doone under the duress of our desire for entertainment. we are involved. go ahea,d pretend we are not. all you are effectively doing is removing a sense of morality and a human conscience from your line of reasoning, thereby rendering your line of reaosning null and void
for success in sports, you get lots of money, lots of fame, lots of chicks, etc.
this puts a huge incentive on someone to modify if modifications are allowed. all things being equal then, the winner becomes the guy who modifies the most. to max out on your modifications, you have to go to some modifications on the bleeding edge of tech and biochem, whose side effects are unknown
young cocky athletes who think they're immortal, in an environment where modifications are allowed, leads to what?
it leads to young athletes cripped, dead, cancer ridden, etc
and like the roman audiences watching gladiators, you are complicit in their maming and death, because you pay for tickets to watch these malformations compete, which makes a mountain of cash that encourages them to modify
do you still honestly believe your position is defensible?
the idealist has lofty goals, but will not sully himself with wordly concerns, and winds up doing nothing
he does however, heap scorn on the realist, who actually gets something done by working within the messy parameters of the world before him, and actually makes progress work. the realist does not achieve the high-impossible goals of the idealist, but he sets the groundwork so later generations can reach ever closer to the ideal
this conflict defines much of what goes on in politics and ideology. the idealist is merely a mental child, stunted in growth over his inability or refusal to deal with the ugliness of reality. he is also very loud, very whiny, its all he does. the realist is quiet, too busy working, actually getting something done
the idealist believes he is holding on to a concept the realist has forgotten. the realist fully understands the concept the idealist thinks he has a monopoly on. the realist is merely too busy working towards the ideal the idealist merely whines about to rebut the idealist. its a waste of time to engage an idealist. they are merely mental damage to be routed around and ignored
its not even really important the final redoubt of the idealist, how he thinks he is actually serving mankind: keeping the flame, holding on to lofty ideals in the face of those who compromise them to get stuff done. this is not really a worthy effort. that's because idealism is simpleminded, it is a form of fundamentalism. it is something that any 14 year old can discover independently and grasp completely, and many do. with luck, that 14 year old will realize he needs to be realistic. otherwise, he remains an idealist, stunted in growth, the immature waste reborn anew in every generation. very loud, very useless people
china or india aren't doing basic research either, i was merely making an appeal to nationalism
why do nations invest billions in space programs? its nothing but tribal chest thumping. now you can complain that nations should invest in space programs and basic research for noble goals, or you can swallow your high-mindedness and appeal to what gets you cash. appeal to tribal pride, and you will squeeze some coin out for basic research
scare americans with stories about chinese and indian basic research. forget the truth or distruth or mistruth or truthiness of those stories. just make an appeal to nationalism. in this way, you will get american funding for basic research
by drawing a line, i am cutting through a gray area, and outlawing things many people think are fine
and somehow this approach is inferior to drawing no line at all, and allowing things that even the athletes themselves would second guess were they a little older and not obsessed with a race to glory? that is, if they got a little older, and weren't dead of the side effects of doing the kinds of things which no person with the slightest moral code would allow
this is your world of drawing no lines
its inferior to cutting through the grey area with a line
somethings that could be considered as a sort of enhancement/ can also be a sort of just food and nutrition: a gray area. but drinking water is nowhere near like taking meth
simply because it is difficult to find the spot to the draw the line coherently, does that mean that we don't draw a line at all?
this is actually a common moral quandry in many issues, how to deal with drawing a line in grey areas. and your approach is wrong. i'll disprove it in allegory...
example: should speeding be outlawed? we'll assume for the sake of argument that you believe speeding should be outlawed, that it is dangerous for other drivers
ok, now where do you draw the line? 70mph? 75mph? 80mph? 85mph? 90mph?
for each driver, each road condition, etc., you could make a case for a wide range of numbers. but you have to pick A number, and stick with it, perhaps modifying it later as caretechnology and road conditions improve
but according to your philosophy, simply because picking the right number is hard, that because a grey area exists, we can't arrest the guy going 130mph
bullshit. there is a grey area. but there is also way over the line. the existence of the grey area does not allow you to excuse the guy way over the line
get it?
i'll repeat: the existence of the grey area does not allow you to excuse the guy way over the line
so you cut through the grey area, you make the hard choice. because the hard choice is superior to no choice and allowing far far worse
any game of sufficient mental agility and complexity, without a traditional physical aspect, can be considered to be a sport
besides, history is against you. go to japan, korea, taiwan: that is the future, where videogames are afforded the same level of media coverage, fame, and salaries as professional athletic sports in the usa
because, forever, there will be the outer edge of human technological discovery. at this bleeding edge is where you will find the performance enhancements you need in the endless arms race to outdo all of the performance enhancements your competitors are making
as such, people will always be trying dangerous and untested methods that will wind up with a lot of brain damaged, cancer ridden, or wheelchair bound young burnouts from sports where enhancement is legal
so it will never be legal, because no one will ever find this acceptable
but i know its not a real sport, its just a one act play starring roid heads
buyt i also enjoy watching professional drug-free baseball, and am disgusted by mcguire
what appeals to me in each situation is different than the other
and if professional baseball suddenly allowed all drugs in their sports, me, and the majority of the fanbase, would turn to the drug-free sports authorities that would obviously spring into existence to satisfy audiences like me
if you ask why audiences like me exist, you still don't understand what the fundamental appeal of sports is in the first place, the empathy of being human and seeing human achievement. not engineering
of course, some would continue to watch the drug-enhanced baseball
they would be enjoyable jokes on par with professional wrestling, not real sports
and i won't even address your continued point about all life being chemical. if you can't understand there is a difference between drinking a glass of water and taking methamphetamine, you are simply out of touch with the real issue here
but i know its not a sport, its a one act play starring roid heads
and i also enjoy watching horror movies, and i also enjoy genuine sports
what appeals to me in each situation is different than the other
and if professional basketball, baseball, football, etc. suddenly allowed all drugs in their sports, me, and the majority of the fanbase, would turn to the drug-free sports authorities that would obviously spring into existence to satisfy audiences like me
of course, some would continue to watch the drug-enhanced basketball, baseball, fottball, etc.
they would be enjoyable jokes on par with professional wrestling, not real sports
and to make my point perfectly clear, i have no problem with people using these in card games, or in the military. i am not making a morallistic argument
what i am making is a logistical argument: people will be less interested in watching sports if it is less about human achievement and more about biochemistry
"I don't actually think that accepting drug enhancement in a sport would drop its ratings."
i drectly contradict you. in fact, i can show you a case study: professional wrestling. everyone knows that is not real sport. and it is in fact very funny to weatch roid heads smack each other around. however, no one takes it seriously, its not a real sport, everyone watching knows that
when athletes take drugs, it completely alters the fundamental psychology of what makes watching sports appealing in the first place
and so, any sports authority that wants to retain an audience, will be waging war on drug use forever
somethings that could be considered as a sort of enhancement/ can also be a sort of just food and nutrition. but drinking water is nowhere near like taking meth
simply because it is difficult to find the spot to the draw the line coherently, does that mean that we don't draw a line at all?
this is actually a common moral quandry, how to deal with drawing a line in grey areas. and your approach is wrong. i'll disprove it in allegory...
example: should speeding be outlawed? we'll assume for the sake of argument that you believe speeding should be outlawed, that it is dangerous for other drivers
ok, now where do you draw the line? 70mph? 75mph? 80mph? 85mph? 90mph?
for each driver, each road condition, etc., you could make a case for a wide range of numbers. but you have to pick A number, and stick with it, perhaps modifying it later
but according to your philosophy, simply because picking the right number is hard, that because a grey area exists, we can't arrest the guy going 130mph
bullshit. there is a grey area. but there is also way over the line. the existence of the grey area does not allow you to excuse the guy way over the line
1. going 30 mph is the same as 140 mph, right? i mean the car is moving, so it's the same, right? braindead argument
2. sure, let athletes take drugs, who cares if no one watches. i mean, its not like someone will start up a drug free league to get things like advertisers, sponsors, an audience... you know, pay the bills? pffft
so everyone who is disgusted by mcguire, everyone who is disgusted with baseball for that... this is fictional? the feelings of disgust they have is a mirage?
pffft
the effect i talk about is real: people want to see a human display, they don't want to see a roid head fiction...well actually they DO, i just thought of something: it's called professional wrestling.
its very entertaining to watch a bunch of roid heads smack each other around
BUT NO ONE CONSIDERS THAT A REAL SPORT. it's a joke, a one act play
Slashdot Mirror
"civilization iv"
it's the only game i ever played where i would blink once, and it wuld be 6 am, blink again, and it would 6 pm. i had to bend and break the disc in order to have a life
"just one more turn" always turns into 500 more turns
that's some serious video crack right there that game
the opinions of the typical slashdot demographic:
1. middle class to upper middle class
2. suburban, or if urban, living in a low crime area
meanwhile, if you actually go to newark, and ask a sampling of residents their opinion: cameras, gunshot microphones, etc.: that's 100% welcome for them. its funny how the constant threat of violence reorients what your concepts of freedom and invasion of privacy mean. ie, to mean: freedom from street violence, and no invasion of your privacy by street thugs
i hate to say it, but a lot of what slashdotters consider to be the real debate on the concepts of freedom and privacy is actually a luxury that the poor of the world would consider alien. the hackneyed line "he who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security" is frankly, wrong. not morally wrong, logically wrong. for without security, a lot of that which you take for granted, including your entire ideological and political agenda, would not be possible. you can't educate, you can't earn a good income, you can't have peace of mind, you can't have civilization and progress without security
security is the foundation of society. societies with low crime and high security and societal stability have higher incomes and greater standards of living. please get the cause and effect here right: security makes this possible. a lot of money does not make crime go down. pushing crime down, makes standards of living go up. you simply can't build the more involved societal environments necessary for higher riches. you must have law and order, or society will break down in economically measurable ways, and in measurable quality of life ways, including respect for your rights and freedoms
how do you make poor areas of the world rich? the first thing you do, is you give them a highly secure environment. and in a society with high security, other freedoms and higher concepts of civilization can begin to be addressed. the concepts the average slashdotter concerns themselves with when thinking about freedom and privacy are impossible to address in a society without any security. the security must come first. please recognize that: security comes first, is of paramount importance. its upon that foundation of security that makes the debate, that you consider of paramount importance, even possible. the truth of course is that your entire ideological and political agenda fall secondary to the need for a high security environment
many of you disregard and belittle the concept that makes your entire mindset possible. you forget your foundation, and thereby serve to undermine your own set of concerns
now mod me into oblivion and consider me a fearmongerer and freedom destroyer. go ahead, shoot the messenger. i am merely describing common sense attributes of the realit you live in, but you don't like to hear it
i don't care if you reject this message. the average slashdotter is, frankly, out of touch with reality
meanwhile, the residents of newark know exactly what i am talking about
disregarding or belittling the concept of security for people whose daily security is a constant issue, simply makes them disregard you, as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. and they are right about you on that point
ossetia is considered georgian territory by many valid measurements. it also contains people who do not want to be a part of georgia. similiar to east timor, or kosovo
so ok, let the ossetians be free
as if these were the only considerations
other considerations:
1. these ossetian considerations equally match chechnya, whose fight for freedom russia has crushed. do you support chechnya as a free and independent state form russia, on the principles of your support for osssetian independence from georgia? by your rationale, russia should give up chechnya. do you agree with that?
2. furthermore, in the case of kosovo, and east timor, separation was achieved by broad spectrum international support, and a peaceful vote. in the case of ossetia, russia did a sneak attack, on a region it has been involved imperialistically for centuries. do you think the comparison is still valid
3. and finally. what exactly is russia's motivations again?:
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1010/42/370554.htm
study your history in the caucasus. anyone who thinks what is going on here is anything more than an old-style imperialistic landgrab that should be universally denounced by anyone interested in progress in this world is an utter fool
so if a boyfriend says to a girlfriend that if she wears a certain dress he will hit her, and then the girlfriend's friend encourages her to wear the dress anyways, and she gets hit, in your eyes, the friend who encouraged the girfriend is the ultimate culprit?
here's an idea: the scumbag who hits his girlfriend for wearing a certain dress is the ultimate vulprit
and in the caucasus, russia's imperial proving ground for more centuries than the usa has existed, you're telling me the usa is the ultimate culprit?
if the usa gave georgia a goddamn aircraft carrier, russia, russia alone is responsible for invading georgia
or do you believe the line the boyfriend probably fed his girlfriend:
"why did you make me hit you"
you really fucking believe what you just wrote?
those who say invading georgia is like the usa invading iraq?
where are those who say russia's invasion of georgia is the usa's fault?
it's all morally relative, right? we have to let russia do anything they damn well please, because the usa did something bad once, right?
i have a crazy idea: why can't we condemn them both?
why can't you condemn the usa, AND condemn russia?
given that, with all of the vitriol some of you found to fling at washington dc in recent years, why can't you fling some of that now at moscow?
or do crimes of war only stick to the west?
are you motivated by principles? or some weird geopolitical vendetta? (and therefore, part of the problem)
if you are motivation by principles, you must condemn russia now as hard as you condemn the usa
fight imperialism, wherever the fount
simply because he wrote a file system
are you ready to examine prejudice at work in your mind?
many scowl at black people who defend oj simpson simply out of racial affinity
well now you know, in your mind, is the same process at work
and i'll answer yours
reseearcher discovers drug X. drug X makes mice run 2x faster than regular mice. you don't know anything else yet about drug X
do you allow a 19 year old to take drug X?
"Under your reasoning, cosmetic surgery for movie stars (or anyone who seeks fame/fortune) would not be allowed because it enhances their performance onscreen."
cosmetic surgery is well-understood in terms of risks/ complications
you want to depend upon the crystal clear ultraresponsible reasoning skills of 19 year olds with reams of cash and power and fame and women when offered procedures of unknown side-effects
you can't think of an example where we allow people to take those kinds of risks for the sake of frivolous entertainment because such an example doesn't exist: unlike you, people understand how they have a responsibility in this area
"You want to limit what people can and can't do with their own bodies because you think they will become arrogant to their own peril."
this is laughable
#1: what people are doing with their bodies is directly related to what they are getting out of my interaction with what they do with those bodies. i am involved. i can't pretend i'm not
#2: i don't think they will become arrogantr to their own peril, i KNOW they will
we are talking about teenagers, these athletes. you had 100% solid reasoning skills in regard to taking care of yourself when you were 19? if fame money chicks and power were thrown at you?
you wish to absolve me, and yourself, if the responsibility of what people do to themselves BECAUSE OF WHAT WE OFFER THEM FOR DOING THAT
you can't remove yourself from the equation. these deicsions aren't bering made in a vacuum. they are being doone under the duress of our desire for entertainment. we are involved. go ahea,d pretend we are not. all you are effectively doing is removing a sense of morality and a human conscience from your line of reasoning, thereby rendering your line of reaosning null and void
for success in sports, you get lots of money, lots of fame, lots of chicks, etc.
this puts a huge incentive on someone to modify if modifications are allowed. all things being equal then, the winner becomes the guy who modifies the most. to max out on your modifications, you have to go to some modifications on the bleeding edge of tech and biochem, whose side effects are unknown
young cocky athletes who think they're immortal, in an environment where modifications are allowed, leads to what?
it leads to young athletes cripped, dead, cancer ridden, etc
and like the roman audiences watching gladiators, you are complicit in their maming and death, because you pay for tickets to watch these malformations compete, which makes a mountain of cash that encourages them to modify
do you still honestly believe your position is defensible?
your children won't need the fixes your phrenologist makes to your skull
the idealist has lofty goals, but will not sully himself with wordly concerns, and winds up doing nothing
he does however, heap scorn on the realist, who actually gets something done by working within the messy parameters of the world before him, and actually makes progress work. the realist does not achieve the high-impossible goals of the idealist, but he sets the groundwork so later generations can reach ever closer to the ideal
this conflict defines much of what goes on in politics and ideology. the idealist is merely a mental child, stunted in growth over his inability or refusal to deal with the ugliness of reality. he is also very loud, very whiny, its all he does. the realist is quiet, too busy working, actually getting something done
the idealist believes he is holding on to a concept the realist has forgotten. the realist fully understands the concept the idealist thinks he has a monopoly on. the realist is merely too busy working towards the ideal the idealist merely whines about to rebut the idealist. its a waste of time to engage an idealist. they are merely mental damage to be routed around and ignored
its not even really important the final redoubt of the idealist, how he thinks he is actually serving mankind: keeping the flame, holding on to lofty ideals in the face of those who compromise them to get stuff done. this is not really a worthy effort. that's because idealism is simpleminded, it is a form of fundamentalism. it is something that any 14 year old can discover independently and grasp completely, and many do. with luck, that 14 year old will realize he needs to be realistic. otherwise, he remains an idealist, stunted in growth, the immature waste reborn anew in every generation. very loud, very useless people
china or india aren't doing basic research either, i was merely making an appeal to nationalism
why do nations invest billions in space programs? its nothing but tribal chest thumping. now you can complain that nations should invest in space programs and basic research for noble goals, or you can swallow your high-mindedness and appeal to what gets you cash. appeal to tribal pride, and you will squeeze some coin out for basic research
scare americans with stories about chinese and indian basic research. forget the truth or distruth or mistruth or truthiness of those stories. just make an appeal to nationalism. in this way, you will get american funding for basic research
when the next laser, the next solid state transistor, is invented, it will be done in China and India
by drawing a line, i am cutting through a gray area, and outlawing things many people think are fine
and somehow this approach is inferior to drawing no line at all, and allowing things that even the athletes themselves would second guess were they a little older and not obsessed with a race to glory? that is, if they got a little older, and weren't dead of the side effects of doing the kinds of things which no person with the slightest moral code would allow
this is your world of drawing no lines
its inferior to cutting through the grey area with a line
somethings that could be considered as a sort of enhancement/ can also be a sort of just food and nutrition: a gray area. but drinking water is nowhere near like taking meth
simply because it is difficult to find the spot to the draw the line coherently, does that mean that we don't draw a line at all?
this is actually a common moral quandry in many issues, how to deal with drawing a line in grey areas. and your approach is wrong. i'll disprove it in allegory...
example: should speeding be outlawed? we'll assume for the sake of argument that you believe speeding should be outlawed, that it is dangerous for other drivers
ok, now where do you draw the line? 70mph? 75mph? 80mph? 85mph? 90mph?
for each driver, each road condition, etc., you could make a case for a wide range of numbers. but you have to pick A number, and stick with it, perhaps modifying it later as caretechnology and road conditions improve
but according to your philosophy, simply because picking the right number is hard, that because a grey area exists, we can't arrest the guy going 130mph
bullshit. there is a grey area. but there is also way over the line. the existence of the grey area does not allow you to excuse the guy way over the line
get it?
i'll repeat: the existence of the grey area does not allow you to excuse the guy way over the line
so you cut through the grey area, you make the hard choice. because the hard choice is superior to no choice and allowing far far worse
howabout poker?
any game of sufficient mental agility and complexity, without a traditional physical aspect, can be considered to be a sport
besides, history is against you. go to japan, korea, taiwan: that is the future, where videogames are afforded the same level of media coverage, fame, and salaries as professional athletic sports in the usa
because, forever, there will be the outer edge of human technological discovery. at this bleeding edge is where you will find the performance enhancements you need in the endless arms race to outdo all of the performance enhancements your competitors are making
as such, people will always be trying dangerous and untested methods that will wind up with a lot of brain damaged, cancer ridden, or wheelchair bound young burnouts from sports where enhancement is legal
so it will never be legal, because no one will ever find this acceptable
watching a one act play starring roid heads is quite amusing and enjoyable
but its not considered a real sport, its considered a joke
as for body building, i would peg the appeal of that as something different from watching, say, a basketball game
i'm talking about drugs in sports
if you allow drugs in sports, then audiences will turn away
that's all i'm saying. that's the beginning of my point, that's the end of my point
you're talking about a completely different subject
but i know its not a real sport, its just a one act play starring roid heads
buyt i also enjoy watching professional drug-free baseball, and am disgusted by mcguire
what appeals to me in each situation is different than the other
and if professional baseball suddenly allowed all drugs in their sports, me, and the majority of the fanbase, would turn to the drug-free sports authorities that would obviously spring into existence to satisfy audiences like me
if you ask why audiences like me exist, you still don't understand what the fundamental appeal of sports is in the first place, the empathy of being human and seeing human achievement. not engineering
of course, some would continue to watch the drug-enhanced baseball
they would be enjoyable jokes on par with professional wrestling, not real sports
and i won't even address your continued point about all life being chemical. if you can't understand there is a difference between drinking a glass of water and taking methamphetamine, you are simply out of touch with the real issue here
but i know its not a sport, its a one act play starring roid heads
and i also enjoy watching horror movies, and i also enjoy genuine sports
what appeals to me in each situation is different than the other
and if professional basketball, baseball, football, etc. suddenly allowed all drugs in their sports, me, and the majority of the fanbase, would turn to the drug-free sports authorities that would obviously spring into existence to satisfy audiences like me
of course, some would continue to watch the drug-enhanced basketball, baseball, fottball, etc.
they would be enjoyable jokes on par with professional wrestling, not real sports
they are used frequently by the military, and by professional card players
and all of drink coffee, and some of us smoke: concentration enhancers
there are even new calsses of drugs called "cognition enhancers"
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/Unlikely-Drugs-Emerge-as-Cognition-Enhancers-16393-2/
and to make my point perfectly clear, i have no problem with people using these in card games, or in the military. i am not making a morallistic argument
what i am making is a logistical argument: people will be less interested in watching sports if it is less about human achievement and more about biochemistry
"I don't actually think that accepting drug enhancement in a sport would drop its ratings."
i drectly contradict you. in fact, i can show you a case study: professional wrestling. everyone knows that is not real sport. and it is in fact very funny to weatch roid heads smack each other around. however, no one takes it seriously, its not a real sport, everyone watching knows that
when athletes take drugs, it completely alters the fundamental psychology of what makes watching sports appealing in the first place
and so, any sports authority that wants to retain an audience, will be waging war on drug use forever
somethings that could be considered as a sort of enhancement/ can also be a sort of just food and nutrition. but drinking water is nowhere near like taking meth
simply because it is difficult to find the spot to the draw the line coherently, does that mean that we don't draw a line at all?
this is actually a common moral quandry, how to deal with drawing a line in grey areas. and your approach is wrong. i'll disprove it in allegory...
example: should speeding be outlawed? we'll assume for the sake of argument that you believe speeding should be outlawed, that it is dangerous for other drivers
ok, now where do you draw the line? 70mph? 75mph? 80mph? 85mph? 90mph?
for each driver, each road condition, etc., you could make a case for a wide range of numbers. but you have to pick A number, and stick with it, perhaps modifying it later
but according to your philosophy, simply because picking the right number is hard, that because a grey area exists, we can't arrest the guy going 130mph
bullshit. there is a grey area. but there is also way over the line. the existence of the grey area does not allow you to excuse the guy way over the line
get it?
1. going 30 mph is the same as 140 mph, right? i mean the car is moving, so it's the same, right? braindead argument
2. sure, let athletes take drugs, who cares if no one watches. i mean, its not like someone will start up a drug free league to get things like advertisers, sponsors, an audience... you know, pay the bills? pffft
so everyone who is disgusted by mcguire, everyone who is disgusted with baseball for that... this is fictional? the feelings of disgust they have is a mirage?
pffft
the effect i talk about is real: people want to see a human display, they don't want to see a roid head fiction ...well actually they DO, i just thought of something: it's called professional wrestling.
its very entertaining to watch a bunch of roid heads smack each other around
BUT NO ONE CONSIDERS THAT A REAL SPORT. it's a joke, a one act play
get it?