You could probably 'play the same game' better if enhancements were allowed than if they weren't. The interesting thing about these bans is that they add to the rules rather than preserve them. It's already illegal to use mechanical devices like jet packs. But do you allow Hormones? Prohormones? Megavitamins? How do you differentiate between a drug and a nutrient?
Okay, I can understand the whole 'popularity' thing. Of course, I think there'd be huge support for a separate 'all drug olympics.'
If you could take a special drug that made you win the olympics? Hell, the development of such a drug would be groundbreaking, assuming the detriment to health would be worth it. But what happens next year when your competitors use the same thing? Competition is the ultimate proving ground for medical science. What works. What are the side effects. What doesn't. Lets use it!
Alright. So lets say if you're in the olympics you have to make public your drug regime. Anything that you don't list is illegal. Problem solved!
Hell, I'd watch an all drug olympics. All this talk a while back about barriers that will never be broken and now they are. I want to know what people are capable of!
Well, we also make gymnasts stick their landing, and that kills their knees. Maybe we shouldn't?
Ethicical systems have a rational basis. That basis, in this case, as you stated, is the longterm health of the athelete. I don't think that basis is being employed in determining what is legal and what isn't.
If a performance enhancing drug is "healthy", should it be legal?
Where do you draw the line between a nutritional suppliment and a performance enhancing drug?
Yeah, we are testing for natural genetic superiority. We have been for thousands of years... what else is there?
Engineered genetic superiority.
If you are suggesting that we judge atheletic ability based on whatever 'enhancements' we are able to modify our bodies with, then again, I say what's the point?
Same point as testing for natural superiority, I suppose. I mean, if you can have stock car races and stock cars are combonations of both engineering and human ability then why not physical competition done in the same spirit?
Caveat; If you die of 'natural' causes within 5 years after winning the games, ya gotta give the gold back. Fair? Fair!
Like lots of people on this board, I think the whole idea of 'natural' vs. 'unnatural' competition is a little odd. Why is someone who 'naturally' produces more testosterone more ethical than someone who injects it? Shoud certain hormones be restricted to a normal range? Or do we just say 'its gotta be organic.'
Probably at the heart of all this is the question "what's the Olympics about, exactly?" Doing as well as you can? Testing the limits of human endurance? Then allow modifications.
Overcoming disability? Lets penalize those folks with fewer disabilites, then!
The problem with technology is that it blurs natural boundaries and makes us ask silly philosophical questions like "what does a person have to do to qualify as a human."
The original olympics wasn't about all of this silly ethical garbage. It was about muscular naked men manhandling one another in front of a large audience. I, for one, think we should honor this spirit and seek to preserve it.
I hate to say this, but this is a simple application of known and existing technologies. Nifty for the guys that made it, but not exactly groundbreaking.
Don't worry. I'm sure they'll try to patent it anyways.
Good thing too. Most businesses pay their sales people, and the adoption of an open source program as a standard is a good thing for the program. I guess the only problem is the 'spyware' end of things.
I'm not arguing with what you've said in your post. Consider my posts in the context of what I was responding to.
Zero pilots were brave men attacking millitary targets, yes. But their sacrifice does nothing to justify Japan's decision to declare war, which was the logic of the original poster. His assertion was that suicide bombers are willing to give their lives, so they must be "right." That doesn't fly.
Look at things in historical context. If the KKK was worried that too many black people were moving into the neighiborhood and started picking them off and telling them to leave, don't you think they would fight back?
Prior to the Israeli war for Independance, Israelis were buying land in Israel. Arabs answered with force.
Later, the arab nations answered the creation of Israel by ganging up on it 10 men to every 1 Israeli and trying to destroy it.
There are arabs that live in Israel. But try being a Jew living in the West Bank, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. The arab nations aren't exactly playing by their own rules. The IDF is the only thing that has prevented the wholesale slaughter of the Israeli population, which the arab nations specifically declared was their intention.
A foreign land where Jews have lived for over 2000 years. Perhaps Israel is ending a long Arab occupation?
The arab states have broken so many UN resolutions that the ones they make against Israel aren't even funny. The UN ruled that "Zionism was a form of racism" but noone utters a peep about Saudi Arabia forbidding Jews to even set foot on their soil. Why? Lots of Arabs in the UN. I think you overestimate the moral legitamacy of the United Nations.
Palestinians talk about a 'Palestinian right of return' but who gives a damn about an Israel's right to return to the land they owned in Iraq or Jordan before 1948 when they were forced out.
Palestinans talk about human rights after participating in an attack intended to 'push the Jews into the sea' in the words of Nasser, and after abandoning Israel so that slaughter of its citizens would be easier, and after supporting the PLO's terrorist attacks, back when Lebanon still held the west bank.
The Arabs who stayed in Israel and fought to defend it still live there.
Hell, if someone had left the US to fight against it in favor of some other nation bent on its destruction, I'd say the same thing Israel has. "Don't come back. You don't live here anymore. Stay with the people you fought for."
I sympathize with those Palestinians who protest West Bank settlements, but until the Jordanians and Egyptians living in the West Bank stop bombing marketplaces in an attempt to get a "Palestinian right of return" to Israel I'm not going to take any of their 'peace proposals' too seriously.
Japanese zero pilots Kamakazied their planes into American aircraft carriers during WWII.
My point was specific to your assertions. I didn't say 'there have never been any civilian deaths on either side.' Of course there have been. I was saying that it was incorrect to describe bodyguards as 'civilians.' Because I didn't know event you were refering to, I had to guess.
If a wife aids and abets her husband in committing a crime, she can be found guilty of that crime in an American court as an 'accessory.' I'm not saying "bombing an apartment is justified because someone I don't like was in it." I'm saying that if someone's wife participates in millitary activities, then she is millitary and not a civilian.
If you're going to protest the accidental deaths of children from bombing (which you should) you should also protest the deliberate Palestinian use of children as young as 13 and sometimes younger in various attacks.
To put it simply, if a group of people chooses to involve 'civilians' in offensive warfare, then it is dishonest to continue to describe those people as civilians. They are either millitants, or militia.
While I agree that 'mistakes have been made on both sides,' the notion by itself doesn't solve the problem. Any effective plan will have to involve specific detailed proscriptions.
Yeah,if you want to get particular, the US didn't want to pay for the French and Indian war which was fought for its benefit. But since the US didn't need the British to defend them at after that, they kicked them out. "Taxation without representation" is a political slogan. Halfway through the Revolutionary war, the Brits agreed to give America representatives in parliment. But at that point, America turned it down.
Bear in mind that pro-palestinian news sources give Hammas members and bodyguards of terrorists the deceptive label of 'civilians.' From http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2527.shtml ( a pro-intifada site)
In addition to Sheikh Yassin, 7 Palestinian civilians, including 3 of Sheikh Yassin's bodyguards, were killed and 17 others injured, including two of Sheikh Yassin's sons.
Don't worry about basing your vote on copyright issues though. Like most other domestic issues (gay marriage: no, offshoring: yes), their stance is pretty much identical (i.e. pro Hollywood).
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft was made in the depths of IBM. Only there can it be unmade.
You could probably 'play the same game' better if enhancements were allowed than if they weren't. The interesting thing about these bans is that they add to the rules rather than preserve them. It's already illegal to use mechanical devices like jet packs. But do you allow Hormones? Prohormones? Megavitamins? How do you differentiate between a drug and a nutrient?
Okay, I can understand the whole 'popularity' thing. Of course, I think there'd be huge support for a separate 'all drug olympics.'
If you could take a special drug that made you win the olympics? Hell, the development of such a drug would be groundbreaking, assuming the detriment to health would be worth it. But what happens next year when your competitors use the same thing? Competition is the ultimate proving ground for medical science. What works. What are the side effects. What doesn't. Lets use it!
Alright. So lets say if you're in the olympics you have to make public your drug regime. Anything that you don't list is illegal.
Problem solved!
Hell, I'd watch an all drug olympics. All this talk a while back about barriers that will never be broken and now they are. I want to know what people are capable of!
Well, we also make gymnasts stick their landing, and that kills their knees. Maybe we shouldn't?
Ethicical systems have a rational basis. That basis, in this case, as you stated, is the longterm health of the athelete. I don't think that basis is being employed in determining what is legal and what isn't.
If a performance enhancing drug is "healthy", should it be legal?
Where do you draw the line between a nutritional suppliment and a performance enhancing drug?
Yeah, we are testing for natural genetic superiority. We have been for thousands of years... what else is there?
Engineered genetic superiority.
If you are suggesting that we judge atheletic ability based on whatever 'enhancements' we are able to modify our bodies with, then again, I say what's the point?
Same point as testing for natural superiority, I suppose. I mean, if you can have stock car races and stock cars are combonations of both engineering and human ability then why not physical competition done in the same spirit?
So we're testing for natural genetic superiority, then? What is injectable talent less 'real' than genetically produced talent?
Besides, no matter what drugs you add, you'll still have winners and losers. Steriods don't keep you from having to exercise.
I would however get tickets to the womens mud wrestling event at the next Olympics.
eh, with enough performance enhancing drugs, they'll look like men anyways
If you can't detect it, it should be legal.
Caveat; If you die of 'natural' causes within 5 years after winning the games, ya gotta give the gold back. Fair? Fair!
Like lots of people on this board, I think the whole idea of 'natural' vs. 'unnatural' competition is a little odd. Why is someone who 'naturally' produces more testosterone more ethical than someone who injects it? Shoud certain hormones be restricted to a normal range? Or do we just say 'its gotta be organic.'
Probably at the heart of all this is the question "what's the Olympics about, exactly?"
Doing as well as you can? Testing the limits of human endurance? Then allow modifications.
Overcoming disability? Lets penalize those folks with fewer disabilites, then!
The problem with technology is that it blurs natural boundaries and makes us ask silly philosophical questions like "what does a person have to do to qualify as a human."
The original olympics wasn't about all of this silly ethical garbage. It was about muscular naked men manhandling one another in front of a large audience. I, for one, think we should honor this spirit and seek to preserve it.
Amen.
There's been some suggestion of that, re: myostatin inhibitors. They might be useful for various muscular dystrophies.
...he died a natural death.
I hate to say this, but this is a simple application of known and existing technologies. Nifty for the guys that made it, but not exactly groundbreaking.
Don't worry. I'm sure they'll try to patent it anyways.
... so when can I pirate it?
From the article audio.. 'a symantic relationship?' What does that have to do with video?
Good thing too. Most businesses pay their sales people, and the adoption of an open source program as a standard is a good thing for the program. I guess the only problem is the 'spyware' end of things.
I'm not arguing with what you've said in your post. Consider my posts in the context of what I was responding to.
Zero pilots were brave men attacking millitary targets, yes. But their sacrifice does nothing to justify Japan's decision to declare war, which was the logic of the original poster. His assertion was that suicide bombers are willing to give their lives, so they must be "right."
That doesn't fly.
Look at things in historical context. If the KKK was worried that too many black people were moving into the neighiborhood and started picking them off and telling them to leave, don't you think they would fight back?
Prior to the Israeli war for Independance, Israelis were buying land in Israel. Arabs answered with force.
Later, the arab nations answered the creation of Israel by ganging up on it 10 men to every 1 Israeli and trying to destroy it.
There are arabs that live in Israel. But try being a Jew living in the West Bank, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. The arab nations aren't exactly playing by their own rules. The IDF is the only thing that has prevented the wholesale slaughter of the Israeli population, which the arab nations specifically declared was their intention.
A foreign land where Jews have lived for over 2000 years. Perhaps Israel is ending a long Arab occupation?
The arab states have broken so many UN resolutions that the ones they make against Israel aren't even funny. The UN ruled that "Zionism was a form of racism" but noone utters a peep about Saudi Arabia forbidding Jews to even set foot on their soil. Why? Lots of Arabs in the UN. I think you overestimate the moral legitamacy of the United Nations.
Palestinians talk about a 'Palestinian right of return' but who gives a damn about an Israel's right to return to the land they owned in Iraq or Jordan before 1948 when they were forced out.
Palestinans talk about human rights after participating in an attack intended to 'push the Jews into the sea' in the words of Nasser, and after abandoning Israel so that slaughter of its citizens would be easier, and after supporting the PLO's terrorist attacks, back when Lebanon still held the west bank.
The Arabs who stayed in Israel and fought to defend it still live there.
Hell, if someone had left the US to fight against it in favor of some other nation bent on its destruction, I'd say the same thing Israel has. "Don't come back. You don't live here anymore. Stay with the people you fought for."
I sympathize with those Palestinians who protest West Bank settlements, but until the Jordanians and Egyptians living in the West Bank stop bombing marketplaces in an attempt to get a "Palestinian right of return" to Israel I'm not going to take any of their 'peace proposals' too seriously.
Japanese zero pilots Kamakazied their planes into American aircraft carriers during WWII.
That didn't make them "right."
You can find libertarians in favor of gay marriage and even pro-environment.
My biggest problem with the two major parties is all the money they take from special interests.
My point was specific to your assertions. I didn't say 'there have never been any civilian deaths on either side.' Of course there have been. I was saying that it was incorrect to describe bodyguards as 'civilians.' Because I didn't know event you were refering to, I had to guess.
If a wife aids and abets her husband in committing a crime, she can be found guilty of that crime in an American court as an 'accessory.' I'm not saying "bombing an apartment is justified because someone I don't like was in it." I'm saying that if someone's wife participates in millitary activities, then she is millitary and not a civilian.
If you're going to protest the accidental deaths of children from bombing (which you should) you should also protest the deliberate Palestinian use of children as young as 13 and sometimes younger in various attacks.
To put it simply, if a group of people chooses to involve 'civilians' in offensive warfare, then it is dishonest to continue to describe those people as civilians. They are either millitants, or militia.
While I agree that 'mistakes have been made on both sides,' the notion by itself doesn't solve the problem. Any effective plan will have to involve specific detailed proscriptions.
Yeah,if you want to get particular, the US didn't want to pay for the French and Indian war which was fought for its benefit. But since the US didn't need the British to defend them at after that, they kicked them out. "Taxation without representation" is a political slogan. Halfway through the Revolutionary war, the Brits agreed to give America representatives in parliment. But at that point, America turned it down.
To portray Waco as somthing that had a groundswell of support from the Democratic party is pretty ridiculous.
Are you refering to Sheik Yassin of Hammas?
l
Bear in mind that pro-palestinian news sources give Hammas members and bodyguards of terrorists the deceptive label of 'civilians.'
From http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2527.shtm
( a pro-intifada site)
In addition to Sheikh Yassin, 7 Palestinian civilians, including 3 of Sheikh Yassin's bodyguards, were killed and 17 others injured, including two of Sheikh Yassin's sons.
Don't worry about basing your vote on copyright issues though. Like most other domestic issues (gay marriage: no, offshoring: yes), their stance is pretty much identical (i.e. pro Hollywood).
Vote Libertarian?
But with a virus, you'd still have a strong push to make the gene more efficient and to edit out defects, because the gene is so small.
I know they're out there. I just didn't expect them to acomplish nuthin, that's all. ... think any of 'em might be engineerin neu-ku-lar weapons?
At least we still lead the world in whoopass production.
...Thought we fought to get rid of taxes.
Still have 'em though.