The dollar has been gaining strength recently, in direct response to the financial crisis. What does that do to your "theories"?
I would suggest you take a few finance courses and learn how things work. The world doesn't view economies or currency like a person's bank statement. It doesn't work like that. As you would imagine, it's more complex with many more variables.
You don't think PhD economists write dissertations for fun do you? No, they write them because it is a complex subject. Reducing it down to personal checking accounts will lead you to incorrect conclusions.
And yea, I do have some proof: see the GDP rates here.
While there is an exception here and there, you can plainly see the US tops almost all of the charts. Of course, it doesn't say anything about which is more "successful" because you haven't defined what success is. In worldview, global economic terms, success is measured by a) a country's current wealth and b) the level of output it achieves
Everything you said in your post is correct except for one glaring oversight.
If you want to know which policy is more valuable, take a look at the Euro and the Pound versus the Dollar. This anti-Socialism nonsense is based in a fantasy world where facts are non-existent, and anecdotes trump reality.
You sir, haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. Currency exchange rates are set by a whole variety of different criteria. It has nothing to do with socialism, success, or any other such personal trait you ascribe to nations. Talk about anecdotes! The relative value of a nation's currency has NO relation with which policy is more "valuable". (whatever that means)
Why don't you try comparing GNP's, GDP's, M1, M2, and M3 money rates, interest rates, trade balances, etc? I'll give you a hint....those are the things that matter when we are talking about exchange rates.
How about we use the correct term and call it what it is: legislation.
Congress didn't "encourage" subprime lending. They required it. (please excuse the McCain propaganda in this video...not meant to be political but it has some very relevant facts to the question at hand)
Doesn't anyone remember "redlining" mortgages from the 80's and 90's? Here is some background info. Read the part about mortgages.
Congress reacted to this by legislating subprime lending and requiring banks to provide X% of their loans to people who probably should not have gotten them.
...and yes, I expect to get modded down just because the video is clearly pro-McCain.
Yea, ok. I understand what you are saying except for one thing: we have tried laissez-faire. And we got the great depression. It is not true to say that those firms "made it through that time". Countless firms were wiped out. As were countless Americans. Just like now. Back then, it took the private industry (JP Morgan) along with FDR's new deal and a large scale war to bring us out of it. ie: there was heavy govt involvement.
Regulation is a balance. We both acknowledge that. But the balance is so tipped right now that it borders on laissez-faire. With the ever increasing complexity of the financial world, that is clearly the wrong way to go. It didn't work in the 1890's, it didn't work in the 1910's, it didn't work in the late 1920's, and it isn't working right now. Once again, our govt has had to step in to stabilize things. That - by default - tells you laissez-faire doesn't work.
And I have evidence to back this up: read the front page of any financial newspaper right now. Worst markets we've ever seen since the Depression. Is that a coincidence? No. It's not. History is just repeating itself. We didn't regulate appropriately back then and we aren't regulating appropriately now.
We let these firms pretty much do whatever they wanted and now you are seeing the results. Only after this crisis, did our govt wake up. Except by then, it was already too late.
Leverage (aka: debt) is key to our economic model. However, that leverage is carefully managed.
Management of the leverage is what is missing here. NO FIRM should be allowed to leverage up 30:1. (30x your collateral)
You are comparing apples and oranges.
And since you went there with LTCM....allow me to quote you a figure, "At the beginning of 1998, the firm had equity of $4.72 billion and had borrowed over $124.5 billion with assets of around $129 billion. It had off-balance sheet derivative positions with a notional value of approximately $1.25 trillion"
Management of leverage was obviously missing there. 1.25 trillion? That is absolutely totally fucking insane. But because Merriweather was a "smart guy" --- the investment banks let him do this. And it put the entire system at risk.
That's not supposed to happen. Ever. Yet it did. Do we learn nothing from history?
Firefox. Schwab's is just a little Java app that downloads. If you knew the URL, you could prolly spawn it yourself, although I don't know how it handles the credentials and authentication.
Don't know what the problem is on your end but I have lots of friends that do the same.
I never reply to AC's but I am making an exception.
The executive branch appoints people to run institutions like the SEC, FCC, etc. Those people appointed have totally abdicated their responsibility to the people. The entire purpose of the SEC is to make it a "level playing field" with respect to financial disclosure and equity trading. It is not.
Why? Because nobody in those posts is enforcing ANYTHING. And they haven't for a very long time. Yes, Congress makes the rules. But if nobody enforces them, are they really rules?
Uhhh, prostitution laws, "soft" drugs, fiscal policies, freedom of speech (compared to other Euro countries), etc, etc. That's my point: Holland has accepted these things as part of society and treats them in a much more rational way (hence why there isn't chaos reigning when so many groups want different things)
Contrast that with the US, where we have ALL kinds of laws that the average citizen thinks are unjust and therefore, they ignore them. Cannabis laws for one. Popular on/. and popular in American society as a whole. Yet totally illegal (in all places, per Federal law -- yes, I know about the state initiatives)
Over 50% of the US prison population is in prison because of drugs. We spend a SHITLOAD of money keeping them there and we spend a shitload of money enforcing said laws. Yet, drug use statistics remain steady over the last 20 years.
I could argue that is the "chaos" he is speaking of. While Holland isn't perfect, I can easily see his point. If you can't, methinks you might not be trying to.
Say what you want about the origins of the problem but there is no doubt whatsoever that regulation of securities (via the SEC) has been totally and 100% completely absent during all of this.
That, most definitely, happened on Bush's watch. The "laissez-faire" philosophy of the republicans sounds and looks a lot like Hoover right now. They have, literally, let Wall Street run itself. And you can see the end result on the front pages everyday. Whats the saying? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Look, I am no regulation lover but even the staunchest of conservative economists recognize free markets must have some regulation to insure a fair playing field. Under this administration -- there has been NONE.
Do you realize that many firms were allowed to leverage up 30 to 1? Let me break down what that means for the/. crowd. Say you have a $10 watch. You go to a pawn shop for a loan and they loan you what? I'd say about $5 or so. Certainly something less than the value of the watch, right? Well, on Wall Street lately, they've been getting $300 loans based on that $10 watch.
That is totally fucked up and should have never happened. End of story.
Any trading platform is only as good as the data it gets.
Not to sound like an ass but anyone who is that serious about trading needs to invest in a Bloomberg terminal. If you are just dinking around - that's one thing. But the summary seems to indicate you are looking for a "serious" trading platform. Don't waste your time with FOSS. FOSS has it's place but a trading platform is not it. Go with a proven solution.
There are plenty of "active trader" platforms out there from a variety of brokers. Most that I have see are Java apps. I run Schwab's web-based active trading on Linux all the time but even it is a simplified version of the real thing.
Also, one more thing to consider: I would hate to find out that my FOSS trading platform had a bug. If it's bad enough, it could be devastating and totally wipe you out. Do you really want to take on that kind of risk? This really isn't the place to be "testing" your trading platform when real dollars are at stake.
Now....analysis is a different beast. FOSS might have a place there. I don't know but I see no reason to reinvent the wheel when there are FAR better solutions already out there. I have yet to see anything from FOSS that is compelling. And no -- MS Money/Quicken imitators are NOT what we are talking about here. Not even close.
I will never forget a conversation I had with a Dutch friend while visiting Holland.
The Dutch, in general, are a fairly conservative people overall. (yes, I know - generalization....)
So we got to talking about the conservative people vs the liberal laws they have regarding social issues. I asked him about this apparent contradiction and I will never forget his reply: "Holland is a very very diverse country. The alternative to social liberalism is chaos. There are so many different groups with different beliefs that we have to have liberal laws".
Which is exactly opposite of what we seem to do here in America. There's a lesson in there somewhere.....
None of those guys had to deal with the complexity that modern day car companies face. From safety regulations/testing, to fuel economy, to labor unions, to pensions, etc, etc. The list is endless.
However, I would like to point out your example (drug that makes mice run 2x as fast) is a totally unrealistic analogy. There are no such drugs that are that unknown. There is nothing in the world that we say "it makes mice run 2x as fast" - and that's it. No. Not deep enough. We know about the biological and pharmacological properties. We know what "class" of drug it is. We know what it's cousins do (much of the time). We know where it came from. If natural, we've studied it (or can easily do so). We most likely have anecdotal evidence of it's side effects and some history of usage (especially in humans). Nobody would take an unknown substance that has unknown side effects with unknown risks and unknown benefits - based on one characteristic of it's effect on mice. Your example is, quite simply, unrealistic.
My analogy, using a real example, is much more accurate to the problem at hand (enhancement of human beings, particularly in sports/games). So what do you say to steroids?
Again, if you say yes - then we agree. (and you'll have to contradict your earlier posts)
But if you say no, then you show why you have an issue with it. It's a moral problem to to you.
Seriously. Apple is a $134 billion dollar company who made $4.6 billion is profits last year.
$100 million/qtr is chump change for having 90% of the online music market. (Who knows how big that is?) The market could sustain BILLIONS in profits but the idiots running the record labels still don't get it. After seeing the $100 million number, I would be surprised if the iTunes store is making "piles of money".
And, we do(nt) generally call people on anti-depressants "druggies" The stretched truth has now snapped, entering the realm of, at best, embellishment.
Maybe that's a stretch for you but I have ALWAYS wondered why a pot smoker is a drug addict but the guy on Prozac isn't. Both are drugs. Both are powerful drugs. Yet, one is perfectly acceptable and the other can land you in prison.
America has very very hypocritical policies when it comes to drugs. Some are fine (but are equally as dangerous) while others that are less harmful, are prohibited. If you would like to argue this point, please feel free but I can come up with hundreds of examples where a normal, rational person would clearly see the conflict.
We know it can enhance men's sports performance. We also know the many of the side effects. This particular enhancement has been around for 100 years. Some choose to take them, some don't. In other words, adults -all over the sports world- are deciding for themselves whether to use the enhancement or not. (and yes, I know some organizations legislatively ban them from competition. most don't)
Do you wish to restrict steroids from sports?
If you say yes, you are forced to answer why. We've already been through that and concluded it's based on moral grounds.
If you say no, then you make my point (and are actually in agreement with my arguments).
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 reasoning null and void
Null and void doesn't apply to reasoning. Contradicting would have been a better word choice.
Beat yourself up over #1 all you want. It's not an issue. We already know capitalism can lead to excesses. I addressed that already. I have said quite bluntly: there will be excesses. If you choose not to spend your capital supporting such efforts, then fine. There are plenty of people lined up right behind you who will. They also don't have a moral problem with their own involvement. Nobody beats themselves up for attending a football game when one of the players goes down with a bad knee. You're getting into kooky territory here....and if you think they should get morally outraged, well, there again, you're just projecting your beliefs onto others.
#2: if you already know this, then we will have to agree to disagree. This very statement reveals you don't have much faith in humanity. You hide behind righteous indignation but what you are really saying is "I don't think people will make the right decision so I think I need to make the rules"
3rd (just to add): We aren't talking about "teenagers" here. Using that term is a shallow attempt at framing a "for the children" argument. We're talking adults here. Adults who are able to make their own grown-up decisions about risk/reward profiles. You making the decision for everyone is not the answer.
P.S. Are you kidding about the cosmetic rationale you take? There are all kinds of reports of excesses in that area. Again, just like everything else. As with anything, there are risk/rewards. Some known, some not. There is not a single area of the human experience where we know all of the risks. It simply isn't attainable (but we have science to help us find them). The analogy still stands: We know no more about cosmetic surgery than we do with sports performance enhancement. Both rely on currently accepted medical practices.
It's not just defensible, it's happening right in front of you.
You can fearmonger all you want about the excesses but you have not addressed my point at all. 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. What if they don't? What if, instead, everyone used it responsibly? (in ideal-world). Would that change your position?
Under your reasoning, cosmetic surgery for movie stars (or anyone who seeks fame/fortune) would not be allowed because it enhances their performance onscreen. Don't you get it? For 10's of thousands of years, mankind has been looking for ways to improve himself in every aspect of his being. Sure, there are always going to be excesses (just like there are with anything). But the overall trend of increasing improvements is not going to change.
Just look at what we've done with ourselves through improved nutrition. We've been very successful with agriculture over that time and look how much healthier/enhanced we are compared to our ancient ancestors. Now, we are starting to begin to understand things on a biological level. The applications are endless in that area and the sports performance aspect is a very very small piece of this larger puzzle. You want to stop technology for moral reasons. You can try but history says you're going to be wrong.
...but we're talking about individual (sports) performance enhancement, right? Remember, the context of my post was regarding sports performance enhancement. We only differ in the method of enhancement.
I ask because cars are a totally different analogy with clear and obvious societal implications. There are obvious reasons we draw lines there. But we don't and shouldn't draw lines everyplace there is an opportunity to do so. We don't do that with Art. We don't do that with Music. We do do that for Engineering (for good reason). We do do that for Doctors (again, for good reason). There are countless examples on both sides. In some places, lines are needed. In others, they are not.
But lines on how far one can improve their own human sports performance? I don't get why not.
You bely your true intentions with your comment, "...which no person with the slightest moral code would allow"
I get it now. You have a moral problem with the method of enhancement.
On that sir, we'll just have to disagree. I believe people are smart enough to make their own choices in this area. In fact, I am 100% certain.
By activist judges, we don't mean "judges who are doing their job and objectively ruling on law". You are right, that is the judicial branch's job.
Rather, the title of activist judges is reserved for judges (some appointed by political leaders) who start inserting their own bias and ideological beliefs into their interpretations. There is a big difference between intellectual disagreements about law and outright manipulation of the law. Everyone is for a good discussion about interpretation with real dissenting viewpoints. The problem is that there is always someone who wants to abuse that banner and start promoting their own (usually extreme) interpretations. No one would argue that judges have the power to do this. We grant them exceptional power but in return, we ask they be impartial and objective.
Well -big shocker- not all of them are. To claim otherwise is totally ludicrous. They are human, after all.
Yes, yes, there are activist judges out there. Not the majority, I am sure. But enough of them to matter.
because now it is not a display of human mastery, now it is a display of biochemical mastery
So....things like eating? sleeping? training in the mountains? sleeping in hyperbolic chambers?
Aren't those biochemical process triggers also? Or do those not count?
The problem with your line of reasoning is that someone has to draw the lines on what is and isn't allowed. When you do that, you - by default - prohibit certain things that other people will think are fine. And now you are back to the same problem. You haven't answered or fixed anything.
Arms race is right. More like "we're trying to ignore the fact that we CAN make humans better through enhancements. If we just ignore it, it will go away and we can just get back to the purity of the game!". Nonsense. The cat is out of the bag and has been for 30+ years.
If you are so sure that a sport can't last with enhancements allowed, then riddle me this: Why are WWE Wrestling, Powerlifting, Pro Football, Pro Baseball, and countless other high performance sports so successful? All of them have known, documented case of drugs/doping/supplementing/enhancing. All of them (sans Powerlifting) are very popular and remain so.
I'd argue, part of a sport's success, is because of the enhancements. Natural, non-natural, doped, roided, or otherwise. That's what produces the "home runs" and that's what the fans ultimately want. If it can be done safely, the fans will get what they want (eventually). The rest is just educating/updating people's thinking of what "sports training" is. It's changed a lot from the 1950's so there is no reason we can't update it again.
Slashdot Mirror
The dollar has been gaining strength recently, in direct response to the financial crisis. What does that do to your "theories"?
I would suggest you take a few finance courses and learn how things work. The world doesn't view economies or currency like a person's bank statement. It doesn't work like that. As you would imagine, it's more complex with many more variables.
You don't think PhD economists write dissertations for fun do you? No, they write them because it is a complex subject. Reducing it down to personal checking accounts will lead you to incorrect conclusions.
And yea, I do have some proof: see the GDP rates here.
While there is an exception here and there, you can plainly see the US tops almost all of the charts. Of course, it doesn't say anything about which is more "successful" because you haven't defined what success is. In worldview, global economic terms, success is measured by a) a country's current wealth and b) the level of output it achieves
Again, the US tops the charts in these areas too.
Everything you said in your post is correct except for one glaring oversight.
If you want to know which policy is more valuable, take a look at the Euro and the Pound versus the Dollar. This anti-Socialism nonsense is based in a fantasy world where facts are non-existent, and anecdotes trump reality.
You sir, haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. Currency exchange rates are set by a whole variety of different criteria. It has nothing to do with socialism, success, or any other such personal trait you ascribe to nations. Talk about anecdotes! The relative value of a nation's currency has NO relation with which policy is more "valuable". (whatever that means)
Why don't you try comparing GNP's, GDP's, M1, M2, and M3 money rates, interest rates, trade balances, etc? I'll give you a hint....those are the things that matter when we are talking about exchange rates.
How about we use the correct term and call it what it is: legislation.
...and yes, I expect to get modded down just because the video is clearly pro-McCain.
Congress didn't "encourage" subprime lending. They required it. (please excuse the McCain propaganda in this video...not meant to be political but it has some very relevant facts to the question at hand)
Doesn't anyone remember "redlining" mortgages from the 80's and 90's? Here is some background info. Read the part about mortgages.
Congress reacted to this by legislating subprime lending and requiring banks to provide X% of their loans to people who probably should not have gotten them.
Give me my degrees Rankine!
And then I'll have a side of Kelvin too. Thank you.
Yea, ok. I understand what you are saying except for one thing: we have tried laissez-faire. And we got the great depression. It is not true to say that those firms "made it through that time". Countless firms were wiped out. As were countless Americans. Just like now. Back then, it took the private industry (JP Morgan) along with FDR's new deal and a large scale war to bring us out of it. ie: there was heavy govt involvement.
Regulation is a balance. We both acknowledge that. But the balance is so tipped right now that it borders on laissez-faire. With the ever increasing complexity of the financial world, that is clearly the wrong way to go. It didn't work in the 1890's, it didn't work in the 1910's, it didn't work in the late 1920's, and it isn't working right now. Once again, our govt has had to step in to stabilize things. That - by default - tells you laissez-faire doesn't work.
And I have evidence to back this up: read the front page of any financial newspaper right now. Worst markets we've ever seen since the Depression. Is that a coincidence? No. It's not. History is just repeating itself. We didn't regulate appropriately back then and we aren't regulating appropriately now.
We let these firms pretty much do whatever they wanted and now you are seeing the results. Only after this crisis, did our govt wake up. Except by then, it was already too late.
Leverage (aka: debt) is key to our economic model. However, that leverage is carefully managed.
Management of the leverage is what is missing here. NO FIRM should be allowed to leverage up 30:1. (30x your collateral)
You are comparing apples and oranges.
And since you went there with LTCM....allow me to quote you a figure, "At the beginning of 1998, the firm had equity of $4.72 billion and had borrowed over $124.5 billion with assets of around $129 billion. It had off-balance sheet derivative positions with a notional value of approximately $1.25 trillion"
Management of leverage was obviously missing there. 1.25 trillion? That is absolutely totally fucking insane. But because Merriweather was a "smart guy" --- the investment banks let him do this. And it put the entire system at risk.
That's not supposed to happen. Ever. Yet it did. Do we learn nothing from history?
Firefox. Schwab's is just a little Java app that downloads. If you knew the URL, you could prolly spawn it yourself, although I don't know how it handles the credentials and authentication.
Don't know what the problem is on your end but I have lots of friends that do the same.
I never reply to AC's but I am making an exception.
The executive branch appoints people to run institutions like the SEC, FCC, etc. Those people appointed have totally abdicated their responsibility to the people. The entire purpose of the SEC is to make it a "level playing field" with respect to financial disclosure and equity trading. It is not.
Why? Because nobody in those posts is enforcing ANYTHING. And they haven't for a very long time. Yes, Congress makes the rules. But if nobody enforces them, are they really rules?
Uhhh, prostitution laws, "soft" drugs, fiscal policies, freedom of speech (compared to other Euro countries), etc, etc. That's my point: Holland has accepted these things as part of society and treats them in a much more rational way (hence why there isn't chaos reigning when so many groups want different things)
/. and popular in American society as a whole. Yet totally illegal (in all places, per Federal law -- yes, I know about the state initiatives)
Contrast that with the US, where we have ALL kinds of laws that the average citizen thinks are unjust and therefore, they ignore them. Cannabis laws for one. Popular on
Over 50% of the US prison population is in prison because of drugs. We spend a SHITLOAD of money keeping them there and we spend a shitload of money enforcing said laws. Yet, drug use statistics remain steady over the last 20 years.
I could argue that is the "chaos" he is speaking of. While Holland isn't perfect, I can easily see his point. If you can't, methinks you might not be trying to.
Say what you want about the origins of the problem but there is no doubt whatsoever that regulation of securities (via the SEC) has been totally and 100% completely absent during all of this.
/. crowd. Say you have a $10 watch. You go to a pawn shop for a loan and they loan you what? I'd say about $5 or so. Certainly something less than the value of the watch, right? Well, on Wall Street lately, they've been getting $300 loans based on that $10 watch.
That, most definitely, happened on Bush's watch. The "laissez-faire" philosophy of the republicans sounds and looks a lot like Hoover right now. They have, literally, let Wall Street run itself. And you can see the end result on the front pages everyday. Whats the saying? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Look, I am no regulation lover but even the staunchest of conservative economists recognize free markets must have some regulation to insure a fair playing field. Under this administration -- there has been NONE.
Do you realize that many firms were allowed to leverage up 30 to 1? Let me break down what that means for the
That is totally fucked up and should have never happened. End of story.
Any trading platform is only as good as the data it gets.
Not to sound like an ass but anyone who is that serious about trading needs to invest in a Bloomberg terminal. If you are just dinking around - that's one thing. But the summary seems to indicate you are looking for a "serious" trading platform. Don't waste your time with FOSS. FOSS has it's place but a trading platform is not it. Go with a proven solution.
There are plenty of "active trader" platforms out there from a variety of brokers. Most that I have see are Java apps. I run Schwab's web-based active trading on Linux all the time but even it is a simplified version of the real thing.
Also, one more thing to consider: I would hate to find out that my FOSS trading platform had a bug. If it's bad enough, it could be devastating and totally wipe you out. Do you really want to take on that kind of risk? This really isn't the place to be "testing" your trading platform when real dollars are at stake.
Now....analysis is a different beast. FOSS might have a place there. I don't know but I see no reason to reinvent the wheel when there are FAR better solutions already out there. I have yet to see anything from FOSS that is compelling. And no -- MS Money/Quicken imitators are NOT what we are talking about here. Not even close.
exactly. An unenforceable law is worthless. People just choose to ignore it and that undermines civil society.
See the War on Drugs for a classical example. Or speeding. Or Copyrights. There are countless examples.
I will never forget a conversation I had with a Dutch friend while visiting Holland.
The Dutch, in general, are a fairly conservative people overall. (yes, I know - generalization....)
So we got to talking about the conservative people vs the liberal laws they have regarding social issues. I asked him about this apparent contradiction and I will never forget his reply: "Holland is a very very diverse country. The alternative to social liberalism is chaos. There are so many different groups with different beliefs that we have to have liberal laws".
Which is exactly opposite of what we seem to do here in America. There's a lesson in there somewhere.....
Labor Unions.
None of those guys had to deal with the complexity that modern day car companies face. From safety regulations/testing, to fuel economy, to labor unions, to pensions, etc, etc. The list is endless.
The answer, based on your information, is no.
However, I would like to point out your example (drug that makes mice run 2x as fast) is a totally unrealistic analogy. There are no such drugs that are that unknown. There is nothing in the world that we say "it makes mice run 2x as fast" - and that's it. No. Not deep enough. We know about the biological and pharmacological properties. We know what "class" of drug it is. We know what it's cousins do (much of the time). We know where it came from. If natural, we've studied it (or can easily do so). We most likely have anecdotal evidence of it's side effects and some history of usage (especially in humans). Nobody would take an unknown substance that has unknown side effects with unknown risks and unknown benefits - based on one characteristic of it's effect on mice. Your example is, quite simply, unrealistic.
My analogy, using a real example, is much more accurate to the problem at hand (enhancement of human beings, particularly in sports/games). So what do you say to steroids?
Again, if you say yes - then we agree. (and you'll have to contradict your earlier posts)
But if you say no, then you show why you have an issue with it. It's a moral problem to to you.
$100m in profit.
They make very little...
Seriously. Apple is a $134 billion dollar company who made $4.6 billion is profits last year.
$100 million/qtr is chump change for having 90% of the online music market. (Who knows how big that is?) The market could sustain BILLIONS in profits but the idiots running the record labels still don't get it. After seeing the $100 million number, I would be surprised if the iTunes store is making "piles of money".
And, we do(nt) generally call people on anti-depressants "druggies"
The stretched truth has now snapped, entering the realm of, at best, embellishment.
Maybe that's a stretch for you but I have ALWAYS wondered why a pot smoker is a drug addict but the guy on Prozac isn't. Both are drugs. Both are powerful drugs. Yet, one is perfectly acceptable and the other can land you in prison.
America has very very hypocritical policies when it comes to drugs. Some are fine (but are equally as dangerous) while others that are less harmful, are prohibited. If you would like to argue this point, please feel free but I can come up with hundreds of examples where a normal, rational person would clearly see the conflict.
Ethyl Alcohol, for starters....(booze)....
affect is a verb
effect is a noun
Yea, I know - it's not perfect. But it does help me keep them straight...
How about a REAL example, huh?
Try this one on: testosterone. aka steroids.
We know it can enhance men's sports performance. We also know the many of the side effects. This particular enhancement has been around for 100 years. Some choose to take them, some don't. In other words, adults -all over the sports world- are deciding for themselves whether to use the enhancement or not. (and yes, I know some organizations legislatively ban them from competition. most don't)
Do you wish to restrict steroids from sports?
If you say yes, you are forced to answer why. We've already been through that and concluded it's based on moral grounds.
If you say no, then you make my point (and are actually in agreement with my arguments).
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 reasoning null and void
:)
Null and void doesn't apply to reasoning. Contradicting would have been a better word choice.
Beat yourself up over #1 all you want. It's not an issue. We already know capitalism can lead to excesses. I addressed that already. I have said quite bluntly: there will be excesses. If you choose not to spend your capital supporting such efforts, then fine. There are plenty of people lined up right behind you who will. They also don't have a moral problem with their own involvement. Nobody beats themselves up for attending a football game when one of the players goes down with a bad knee. You're getting into kooky territory here....and if you think they should get morally outraged, well, there again, you're just projecting your beliefs onto others.
#2: if you already know this, then we will have to agree to disagree. This very statement reveals you don't have much faith in humanity. You hide behind righteous indignation but what you are really saying is "I don't think people will make the right decision so I think I need to make the rules"
3rd (just to add): We aren't talking about "teenagers" here. Using that term is a shallow attempt at framing a "for the children" argument. We're talking adults here. Adults who are able to make their own grown-up decisions about risk/reward profiles. You making the decision for everyone is not the answer.
P.S. Are you kidding about the cosmetic rationale you take? There are all kinds of reports of excesses in that area. Again, just like everything else. As with anything, there are risk/rewards. Some known, some not. There is not a single area of the human experience where we know all of the risks. It simply isn't attainable (but we have science to help us find them). The analogy still stands: We know no more about cosmetic surgery than we do with sports performance enhancement. Both rely on currently accepted medical practices.
p.s.s. good chat
It's not just defensible, it's happening right in front of you.
You can fearmonger all you want about the excesses but you have not addressed my point at all. 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. What if they don't? What if, instead, everyone used it responsibly? (in ideal-world). Would that change your position?
Under your reasoning, cosmetic surgery for movie stars (or anyone who seeks fame/fortune) would not be allowed because it enhances their performance onscreen. Don't you get it? For 10's of thousands of years, mankind has been looking for ways to improve himself in every aspect of his being. Sure, there are always going to be excesses (just like there are with anything). But the overall trend of increasing improvements is not going to change.
Just look at what we've done with ourselves through improved nutrition. We've been very successful with agriculture over that time and look how much healthier/enhanced we are compared to our ancient ancestors. Now, we are starting to begin to understand things on a biological level. The applications are endless in that area and the sports performance aspect is a very very small piece of this larger puzzle. You want to stop technology for moral reasons. You can try but history says you're going to be wrong.
Touche' - hyperbaric, not hyperbolic.
That would be an interesting sight, wouldn't it? haha
...but we're talking about individual (sports) performance enhancement, right? Remember, the context of my post was regarding sports performance enhancement. We only differ in the method of enhancement.
I ask because cars are a totally different analogy with clear and obvious societal implications. There are obvious reasons we draw lines there. But we don't and shouldn't draw lines everyplace there is an opportunity to do so. We don't do that with Art. We don't do that with Music. We do do that for Engineering (for good reason). We do do that for Doctors (again, for good reason). There are countless examples on both sides. In some places, lines are needed. In others, they are not.
But lines on how far one can improve their own human sports performance? I don't get why not.
You bely your true intentions with your comment, "...which no person with the slightest moral code would allow"
I get it now. You have a moral problem with the method of enhancement.
On that sir, we'll just have to disagree. I believe people are smart enough to make their own choices in this area. In fact, I am 100% certain.
By activist judges, we don't mean "judges who are doing their job and objectively ruling on law". You are right, that is the judicial branch's job.
Rather, the title of activist judges is reserved for judges (some appointed by political leaders) who start inserting their own bias and ideological beliefs into their interpretations. There is a big difference between intellectual disagreements about law and outright manipulation of the law. Everyone is for a good discussion about interpretation with real dissenting viewpoints. The problem is that there is always someone who wants to abuse that banner and start promoting their own (usually extreme) interpretations. No one would argue that judges have the power to do this. We grant them exceptional power but in return, we ask they be impartial and objective.
Well -big shocker- not all of them are. To claim otherwise is totally ludicrous. They are human, after all.
Yes, yes, there are activist judges out there. Not the majority, I am sure. But enough of them to matter.
because now it is not a display of human mastery, now it is a display of biochemical mastery
So....things like eating? sleeping? training in the mountains? sleeping in hyperbolic chambers?
Aren't those biochemical process triggers also? Or do those not count?
The problem with your line of reasoning is that someone has to draw the lines on what is and isn't allowed. When you do that, you - by default - prohibit certain things that other people will think are fine. And now you are back to the same problem. You haven't answered or fixed anything.
Arms race is right. More like "we're trying to ignore the fact that we CAN make humans better through enhancements. If we just ignore it, it will go away and we can just get back to the purity of the game!". Nonsense. The cat is out of the bag and has been for 30+ years.
If you are so sure that a sport can't last with enhancements allowed, then riddle me this: Why are WWE Wrestling, Powerlifting, Pro Football, Pro Baseball, and countless other high performance sports so successful? All of them have known, documented case of drugs/doping/supplementing/enhancing. All of them (sans Powerlifting) are very popular and remain so.
I'd argue, part of a sport's success, is because of the enhancements. Natural, non-natural, doped, roided, or otherwise. That's what produces the "home runs" and that's what the fans ultimately want. If it can be done safely, the fans will get what they want (eventually). The rest is just educating/updating people's thinking of what "sports training" is. It's changed a lot from the 1950's so there is no reason we can't update it again.