Tyler tests positive

raamman wrote:
the other thing is most people are lazy, they never commit and never
really push themselves, always looking for an easy way.

Thats why we don't live in caves anymore or take anti-paranoia drugs
because we think the sabre toth tiger is out to get us.

In article ,
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" wrote:

wrote in
:

correct. we really are not qualified to be the judge in his case,

I was unaware that 'we' took control of a court of law and were deciding on
wether or not Hamilton should go to jail.

The other option is that you're suggesting 'we' are not qualified to make
up our minds with the information as 'we' see fit. Actually, 'we' are; I
can pass moral judgement on Hamilton in any way I want.

You can, but you might well be misinformed, or wrong, or just plain
stupid.

Also, your moral judgement is likely to have zero effect on Mr.
Hamilton's fate.

Chances of passing an accurate, well-considered moral judgement on
another human being based on brief, preliminary news reports are
(according to the latest rbr research) about 50/50.

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsb...mwell-and-inte
llectual-lobotomy.html

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Ryan Cousineau wrote in
]:

In article ,
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" wrote:

wrote in
:

correct. we really are not qualified to be the judge in his case,

I was unaware that 'we' took control of a court of law and were
deciding on wether or not Hamilton should go to jail.

The other option is that you're suggesting 'we' are not qualified to
make up our minds with the information as 'we' see fit. Actually,
'we' are; I can pass moral judgement on Hamilton in any way I want.

You can, but you might well be misinformed, or wrong, or just plain
stupid.

Also, your moral judgement is likely to have zero effect on Mr.
Hamilton's fate.

Chances of passing an accurate, well-considered moral judgement on
another human being based on brief, preliminary news reports are
(according to the latest rbr research) about 50/50.

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsb...romwell-and-in
te llectual-lobotomy.html


Moral judgement can, by its nature, not be accurate. You either agree or
disagree. You can judge ruthlessly, nuanced, ill-considered or after long
deliberation, but not inaccurate. It is wrong to believe that Hamilton
admitting depression forces us to judge either way, or that someone with
knowledge of all the facts will inevitably judge in a certain way.

Ofcourse it has zero effect on Hamilton's fate, that's how it should be. My
remark about 'we' not being a court of law reflects that: legal courts need
to know all the relevant facts, I, as a person, am free to pursue them as I
see fit. What I think is not going to affect Hamilton.

This begs the question why it is discussed; let the man pick up his life
and not feed his unhealthy appetite for reassurance in the public opinion
(he's not going to get it anyway).

wrote in
:

On Apr 18, 7:25*am, "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" wrote:
wrote
innews:84364cd1-358e-40a1-9cc2-8a0359e01195@k8g20
00yqn.googlegroups.com:

correct. we really are not qualified to be the judge in his case,

I was unaware that 'we' took control of a court of law and were
deciding
on
wether or not Hamilton should go to jail.

The other option is that you're suggesting 'we' are not qualified to
make up our minds with the information as 'we' see fit. Actually,
'we' are; I can pass moral judgement on Hamilton in any way I want.

you can pass moral judgement, but you (and I ) are not qualified to
judge someone who is in essence a figment of media presentation.
Walking in our shoes, we will never be able to put on anothers to
properly decide the moral divide. but it doesn't matter; it is just
internet chit-chat, about as meaningful to an individual as the life
of an ant you stepped on.

But that's a different assertion, isn't it? You either say that passing
moral judgement of someone shouldn't be done, or that it is pointless. In
the second case, it should bother anyone if it is done or not.

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in
m:

"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" wrote in message
.. .

The other option is that you're suggesting 'we' are not qualified to
make up our minds with the information as 'we' see fit. Actually,
'we' are; I can pass moral judgement on Hamilton in any way I want.

While that's correct be sure to remember that clinical depression is
something pretty awful. It isn't just feeling not up to par. I'm just
getting over something like that caused by an anti-cholesterol drug.
It's been a month since I stopped taking it and I'm still having the
occasional attack. Believe me you don't want that sort of thing.


I really don't see how his depression urges me to think either way.
Assuming he's telling the truth, there are three possibilities.

1. In spite of Hamilton's depression, he is still so much in control of his
faculties that he can be held responsible. In this case, the depression
gives a good explanation of his deeds - it certainly puts them in a
plausible perspective - and, since he is responsible for what he did, any
negative moral judgement falls squarely to him.

2. Hamilton's depression caused him to act the way he did and it completely
took control of his actions. This removes responsibility, but it also means
we haven't seen the 'real' Hamilton for years. In fact, nothing he has done
is his own responsibility. Aside from making him look less guilty, it also
completely breaks down the myth that was constructed around him. A gutsy
rider? No, a fearful, depressed man whose condition was so bad that he
didn't even dare to go to a doctor to fix a broken bone.

3. Something in between. Hamilton will probably vote for this one, but
there's another problem he there is no way we can discern between things
he did because of his depression and things that are completely his
responsibility.

I am tending towards option 1. This is because my experience with people
who suffer depression is that they are generally capable of acting in a
reasonable manner as far as moral actions are concerned. The disease can be
an explanation in a complex structure of behavior, but not an excuse for a
few actions that turn out to be bad ideas.

Hamilton still chose to do what he did - use blooddoping, try to get out of
the sanction with lies, play on the public's emotions with nonsensical
arguments, etc. And, yes, those things do affect my opinion about him,
although I suspect it is far less harsh then you assume.

On Apr 18, 9:05*am, wrote:

amphetamines are highly addictive and lose potiency, surely anyone who
uses amphetamines in an endurance sport is really asking for trouble.
the other thing is most people are lazy, they never commit and never
really push themselves, always looking for an easy way. it is
therefore unsurprising to me that some individals are unable to
concieve of achievement without dishonesty in the process- it is a
true reflection of their modus operandi. an epidemic lie that is their
life



Delusional Dumbass -


How do the 2 hours of sleep/day guys do it for 10 days in FRAAM w/out
drugs?


just wondering,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

On Apr 18, 7:04*am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" wrote in 96.35...



The other option is that you're suggesting 'we' are not qualified to make
up our minds with the information as 'we' see fit. Actually, 'we' are; I
can pass moral judgement on Hamilton in any way I want.

While that's correct be sure to remember that clinical depression is
something pretty awful. It isn't just feeling not up to par. I'm just
getting over something like that caused by an anti-cholesterol drug. It's
been a month since I stopped taking it and I'm still having the occasional
attack. Believe me you don't want that sort of thing.




Dumbass -


How do you feel about people who plead insanity in criminal cases?


thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

On Apr 18, 8:36*am, wrote:


you can pass moral judgement, but you (and I ) are not qualified to
judge someone who is in essence a figment of media presentation.



Dumbass -


That's horse****.

Hamilton was a professional athlete and therefore a public figure and
entertainer. We are *supposed* to pass judgement on them! That's what
the sponsors want. If people don't care, they're not paying attention
and there won't be any branding going on. Athletes get paid to be
loved and to be hated. Athletes who are ignored soon won't be getting
paid at all.

As an aside, has anyone informed you lately that you are a retard?
Well, I'll do you the favor right now. You are a retard. You should do
something about it.


thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

On Apr 18, 12:38*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article ,
*"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" wrote:

wrote in
:

correct. we really are not qualified to be the judge in his case,

I was unaware that 'we' took control of a court of law and were deciding on
wether or not Hamilton should go to jail.

The other option is that you're suggesting 'we' are not qualified to make
up our minds with the information as 'we' see fit. Actually, 'we' are; I
can pass moral judgement on Hamilton in any way I want.

You can, but you might well be misinformed, or wrong, or just plain
stupid.




Dumbass -


There is no such thing as "wrong" in subjective interpretations.

In the case of moral judgements, everyone has their own set of ethics.

Other examples of subjective intepretations are whether people
consider a certain food tasty or whether they consider a certain
person attractive. None of the interpretations are "wrong".


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" wrote in message
.. .
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in
m:

"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" wrote in message
.. .

The other option is that you're suggesting 'we' are not qualified to
make up our minds with the information as 'we' see fit. Actually,
'we' are; I can pass moral judgement on Hamilton in any way I want.

While that's correct be sure to remember that clinical depression is
something pretty awful. It isn't just feeling not up to par. I'm just
getting over something like that caused by an anti-cholesterol drug.
It's been a month since I stopped taking it and I'm still having the
occasional attack. Believe me you don't want that sort of thing.

I really don't see how his depression urges me to think either way.

Hmm, I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. It appears that he
started having depression BEFORE he started doping. I'm not saying that
forgives him. Merely that it is an extenuating circumstance that drove him
to drugs. He had OTHER ways of treating it and chose to do what he did. It
was the wrong way to go. But believe me, I can certainly understand his
problems.

I am tending towards option 1. This is because my experience with people
who suffer depression is that they are generally capable of acting in a
reasonable manner as far as moral actions are concerned. The disease can
be
an explanation in a complex structure of behavior, but not an excuse for a
few actions that turn out to be bad ideas.

Hamilton still chose to do what he did - use blooddoping, try to get out
of
the sanction with lies, play on the public's emotions with nonsensical
arguments, etc. And, yes, those things do affect my opinion about him,
although I suspect it is far less harsh then you assume.

We agree that he was guilty of breaking the rules. I'm just saying that it
would be difficult for you to understand the pressures on him at the time
and it probably wasn't done just to "be a winner".