Although I don't agree with everything, I have to say it's nice to read thourough thoughts about this controversial issue.

This is a great quote:
"Sport hasn't been 'natural' since the first naked Olympian put on sandals".

Relative risk. Bingo.

The reason Ben Johnson was unacceptable and Janet Evans was acceptable is that Janet Evans competed in the right uniform.

To him, athletes who take banned performance-enhancing drugs are as morally and ethically blameless as the pole vaulters who quickly converted from bamboo poles to fiberglass when they saw a competitive edge. Rather than being banned, he insists, steroids should be available, under a doctor's supervision, to any pro or amateur adult athlete who wants them.

One paragraph, two sentences, two separate issues.

In the first sentence, he's talking about the ethics of competition, and as is usually the case with people taking this line, he's disingenuous. If the first pole vaulters who changed to fiberglass poles had disguised them as bamboo, the analogy might be a little more precise. And as a matter of fact, there was controversy about the fiberglass poles, but since they were used right there in the open for everyone to see, the debate centered around the pole itself, and not the issue of cheating. If the juicers had been as forthright and open about their juicing as the pole vaulters, they wouldn't be taking all the heat that they are today.

But in the second sentence, he's talking about creating a new set of conditions, where steroids are openly used, with proper regulation. That's an entirely different matter, and in truth such a scenario wouldn't bother me all that much, as long as the question of long-range health effects were taken into consideration. At that point, you'd have the "coercive" effect of being forced to "keep up with the Joneses / Juicers," but if the allowable doses were restricted to safe levels you'd remove that objection.

And even if the long-range health effects weren't addressed to the satisfaction of everyone, we'd at least have a much more honest debate, because the whole question of deception---which most people see as important, if not a handful of Primates---would be off the table.

If the writer had spent 5 minutes on Google he would have found plenty of information about steroid hysteria and the myths surrounding steroid use.

In 1983, he wrote an editorial for The New York Times titled "Let 'em Take Steroids," an attack on the growing body of conventional and, he thought, bogus wisdom.

1983? Impossible. Steroids weren't invented until 1988.

And, a listener noted, the home run race between McGuire and Sosa is widely credited with bringing fans back after the strike.

Ah, yes, the famed home run race between Mike McGuire and Sammy Sooser.

I'm sorry but this guy is the Peter Duisberg of the ethics profession.

He's a complete whackjob.

He says, as he has for many years and virtually alone, that the maelstrom is nothing more than "the hypocrisy, bad facts, inconsistency and moral incoherence of anti-drug hysteria."

Emphasis on the "virtually alone".

If the first pole vaulters who changed to fiberglass poles had disguised them as bamboo, the analogy might be a little more precise.

Actually, if the pole vaulters never said anything about which type of pole they were using in the first place, the analogy might be a little more precise.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28645.html

http://www.steroidlaw.com/page.php?pageID=39

I've always said that if I had a kid who was a professional athlete and had a choice between baseball and football, I'd feel much safer letting him be a baseball player on steroids than a football player (except for kickers) not on steroids, because the latter are risking their health a lot more.

"Steroids are unfair only if there's unequal access. Removing the ban would give equal access, Also, as long as they are banned, steroids will come from people making them in their bathtubs, no clinical trials as to safety, no oversight of manufacturing process, no long-term studies. If steroids are harmful over the long term, that would be good to know, but under the current conditions, we may never find out."

What does he care? He's in favor of an equilibrium with 100% of players dosing with whatever comes down the pipe. What if the new, super safe steroid is only half as effective as the bathtub stuff you can get from a Mexican veterinary clinic? Would he favor testing then?

The current medical knowledge says not to do this stuff. You're overruling safety and common sense at step #1 in this plan. I can see the player now:

"Gosh, with all this medical advice on tap, my balls are still the size of chickpeas! Maybe no amount of advice is as useful as just not taking the stuff in the first place!"

Indeed, rdfc, an NFL player not on steroids would have a life expectancy of about two plays, but only if the first were blown dead because he flinched.

Who certifies "medical ethicists," anyway? Who certifies the certifiers? And who certifies them? What sort of questions does the "test" ask (whether it's a written test or not), and what are the answers? What if someone cheats on the test? Does he get flunked? And do the people who guard against cheating on the test think that it's OK to juice without telling anyone?

steroids should be available, under a doctor’s supervision, to any pro or amateur adult athlete who wants them.

Better.

Hey, AJM, how do you do that crossout thing?

Hey, AJM, how do you do that crossout thing?

Use HTML strike tags around the text:

Typing:

This is some <strike>example text</strike> for you to see.

produces:

This is some example text for you to see.

With any luck, this example actually shows up...

Andy, same way as other tags. <strike>text</strike> will give you text

You're overruling safety and common sense at step #1 in this plan.

Doesn't the game of football played as it's meant to be played overrule safety and common sense? Boxing too? NASCAR? IMO, on no level of common sense is the game of football reasonable. I would never suggest football should be banned but we've really drawn a squiggly line of what does or doesn't overrule safety and common sense.

Steroids are not going to be punished or legislated out of sports so why not at least entertain the possibility of controlled, legal distribution?

Steroids are not going to be punished or legislated out of sports so why not at least entertain the possibility of controlled, legal distribution?

Controlled legal distribution is what we have now, and what the players, and the people who supply them, seem intent on violating.

Controlled legal distribution is what we have now, and what the players, and the people who supply them, seem intent on violating.

Let me clarify, "Controlled, legal distribution for the sole purpose of improving athletic performance."

Andy, same way as other tags. text will give you text.

I SEE, said the blind man. I was thrown off by the fact that there's no "strike" tag along with the <quote> and the <i>, etc. But I should have figured out that you can always just type in the word "strike."

So a big duh DUH to me. But thanks for the tip.

I put this in the Gladwell thread, but this one seems even more appropriate. As far as well-reasoned bioethical analysis goes, this pretty much blows Fost (or at least the 1 sentence quips in the article) out of the water:

Superior Performance - President's Council on Bioethics

He's a complete whackjob.

This sums up Kevin's ability to make logical arguments.

Superior Performance - President's Council on Bioethics

Though we might be using rational and scientific means to remedy the mysterious inequality or unchosen limits of our native gifts, we would in fact make the individual’s agency less humanly or experientially intelligible to himself.

Right...

He says, as he has for many years and virtually alone, that the maelstrom is nothing more than "the hypocrisy, bad facts, inconsistency and moral incoherence of anti-drug hysteria."

Emphasis on the "virtually alone".

So you disagree that anti-drug hysteria is full of hypocrisy, bad facts and inconsistency? Have you been watching this country's "war on drugs" for the last 20 years? Or have you been watching Bud, Fehr, and Congress do the steroid dance?

Leaving aside the legalize/control issue, do you disagree with this "whackjob" and his basic premise that the hysteria around steroids is more about sensationalism, and FAR less important than tabacco and alcohol abuse? Really?

He is wrong about baseball's attitude towards tobacco though. They've outlawed chew in the minors, they've discouraged it in the majors, and they've gotten rid of smoking in the dugout (at least the ones without Jim Leyland). Is there tobacco advertising at any ballparks? Is smoking even allowed in any of the parks anymore?

Now baseball and beer (and alas, DUIs) ... he has a point.

I'll give you that one on tobacco. The broader point is that there is clearly a whole mess of hypocrisy, inconsistency, and bad information out there. I can't believe anyone could disagree about that...

And even if the long-range health effects weren't addressed to the satisfaction of everyone, we'd at least have a much more honest debate, because the whole question of deception---which most people see as important, if not a handful of Primates---would be off the table.

The problem with your argument, Andy, -- well, one of many problems -- is that you keep conflating the (alleged) deception of fans with the deception of other players.

I'm sorry but this guy is the Peter Duisberg of the ethics profession.

He's a complete whackjob.

And if there's anything that Kevin is an expert on, it's ethics law        ?      .

I put this in the Gladwell thread, but this one seems even more appropriate. As far as well-reasoned bioethical analysis goes, this pretty much blows Fost (or at least the 1 sentence quips in the article) out of the water:

Superior Performance - President's Council on Bioethics

And I responded in the Gladwell thread: speaking of "nutjobs," this is the commission led by Leon Kass, who thinks that trying to save lives -- let alone trying to improve performance -- is unethical. He is opposed to organ transplants, for gods sake.

(I'm not even talking about his nutty non-ethical arguments, like his view that eating ice cream cones in public is sinful.)

Kass is a good illustration of the usefulness of Andy's rhetorical question, "Who certifies 'medical ethicists,' anyway?" (Though of course not in the direction Andy intended it.)

DMN:

Generally, I respect you: you're smart, your argumentative, you're well-reasoned. But you have this tendency to lie and smear which is utterly disgusting. Leon Kass is no nut: you wish you were as smart and accomplished as he. The Commission he led was nearly universally applauded for its "reason" and balance (see for instance the article in Dissent on it), even if it produced positions different from ones you hold. Please post to where Kass opposes organ transplants. Please. Wait, I'll better you and point to where he explicitly says they're fine:

Leon Kass: Well, look, repugnances are interesting things. They don’t settle any moral question but they are at least a sign that we may be crossing a kind of boundary about which crossing we should think before we do it. I think that organ transplantation was a kind of boundary. Medicine didn’t ever cut into one person’s body for the sake of some other person’s body.

Ben Wattenberg: Do you oppose that?

Leon Kass: I don’t oppose that. Of course I don’t oppose that. On the whole, this is a great blessing. But to say that it’s a great blessing doesn’t mean that it doesn’t come with some kind of cost and that we’re better off if we’re at least aware of the cost so that we might be able to forestall certain other kinds of things where the cost really outweighs the benefits. The prophetic novel for this whole field, written in 1932, seventy years ago…

Wow: nuance in argument! That's uncommon.

And his position on eating an ice cream cone in public is not that it's sinful, but that it's beneath the dignity of the human to eat in public and on the run (a view he anticipates as being dismissed as priggish). It's a riff on the Talmud and Erasmus and other thinkers on the nature of eating expressing unique human qualities and which he uses to engage in cultural critique.

Publishing in the area "certifies" you as a medical ethicist. You'll have to excuse some of us if we haven't yet adopted the "professionalization" that allows us to exclude others not based on competence, but on hurdling over ridiculous and extrinsic membership criteria like being accepted into the "bar".

i am SO sorry i am gonna miss the kevin/nieporent meetup. i hope someone videos it and then posts it

of course husband he says i won't be missing one thing because it will be 2 guys into the ballgame so it will be:

kevin - pedroia got a hit. he ROOLZ
david - it was only a dribbly single cuz huff can't catch a cold. he SUX
kevin - ROOLZ!!!!!
david - SUX!!!!
kevin - ROOLZ!!!!!!
david - SUX!!!!!!!
kevin - want another beer?
david - yeh. a bud light
kevin - bud SUX!!!
david - we finally agree on SOMEthing

This sums up Kevin's ability to make logical arguments.

I made the Duesberg analogy, numbnuts.

Look up Duesberg, study his file, then come back and we can talk.

Until then, STFU.

And his position on eating an ice cream cone in public is not that it's sinful, but that it's beneath the dignity of the human to eat in public and on the run (a view he anticipates as being dismissed as priggish). It's a riff on the Talmud and Erasmus and other thinkers on the nature of eating expressing unique human qualities and which he uses to engage in cultural critique.


I thought it was a riff on the French ... who are, of course, 100% right on the matter. Kass's view is "priggish" to American mass man, but hardly priggish.

i am SO sorry i am gonna miss the kevin/nieporent meetup. i hope someone videos it and then posts it

If that one goes on YouTube, for the first time in my life I'll be convinced of God's existence. They should charge admission.

And since Kevin's separated from his wife, maybe he can convince David to dress up as the Asterisk Ball for the occasion. It could be the start of a beautiful friendship.

Actually, I want to apologize to DMN for a gratuitous and unnecessary part of my reply to him. This is unfair and silly: you wish you were as smart and accomplished as he. I shouldn't have said it.

And even if the long-range health effects weren't addressed to the satisfaction of everyone, we'd at least have a much more honest debate, because the whole question of deception---which most people see as important, if not a handful of Primates---would be off the table.

Just wanted to mention that this part is a strong point I think in the argument about roids and PEDs. Even if it's proven beyond a doubt that HGH has zero ability to enhance a ball player, the fans, media and congress are still going to doubt the numbers produced today because it was done in secrecy, in an attempt to cheat. It's not about it being illegal(players doing coke and speed which helped, weren't doing it to 'cheat' but just to get by or survive a grueling season or because it was the hip thing to do or whatever, but nobody at the time or even within a period where it mattered, suggested that those could be performance enhancers in the same way that PED's are.)

The secrecy/deception part, coupled with their intentions is what is causing all the controversy, it doesn't matter that it may or may not have been against the rules, the law or even dangerous.

kevin- So you have the pulse on the ethics profession? Were you once a professional ethicist?

I'd say that Duesberg is smarter and more accomplished than you could ever hope to be so let's not be calling him a whackjob just because he's "crazy" or "wrong" or JC will get upset.

JC- I love that you have this great big lecture for David when he calls an objectively crazy person crazy but nothing for Kevin when he randomly smears someone who disagrees with you.

Though we might be using rational and scientific means to remedy the mysterious inequality or unchosen limits of our native gifts, we would in fact make the individual’s agency less humanly or experientially intelligible to himself.

I suppose this was quoted as a self-evident absurdity. However this expresses my view of PED's almost perfectly. I wish I had said it.

I would also agree with the Kass quotes that JC brought up. Organ transplants are a boundary. Crossing boundaries without thought or even acknowledgement is dangerous. I disagree however when he phrases the question in terms of costs and benefits. Once the question is phrased in terms of instrumental reason the answer is a foregone conclusion.

And he's also right that our culture of eating is crude, base and undignified.

I suppose this was quoted as a self-evident absurdity. However this expresses my view of PED's almost perfectly. I wish I had said it.

Mine, too, without the misused and unnecessary "big" words and "deep thoughts." I'm interested in the experience of human beings striving for athletic excellence and competing with one another, not in the ersatz feats of farmed "athletic creations," which more resemble the circus.

So you have the pulse on the ethics profession? Were you once a professional ethicist?

I certainly have the pulse of the scientific/medical profession and much of what this guy has to say about the facts of the matter are flat wrong, contradictory to the available data and has no support in the medical community. Hence, my comparison to Peter Duesberg.

I'd say that Duesberg is smarter and more accomplished than you could ever hope to be so let's not be calling him a whackjob just because he's "crazy" or "wrong" or JC will get upset.

Well, since you have no clue what my credentials are, or Duesberg's either, for that matter, you have no basis for making this statement. Having said that, I will say that Duesberg was a highly respected and accomplished retrovirologist until he started to butt heads with HIV and AIDS, where he completely fell apart, making ridiculous and outlandish claims about etiology of the disease to the point where he has been suspended from being funded for HIV/AIDS work. I could imagine the same thing happening to Fost regarding steroids.

I've never been blackballed from funding or working on anything, so I have that going for me, which is nice.

And he's also right that our culture of eating is crude, base and undignified.

Indeed, and the purported "priggishness" of proffering such distinctions in such terms is among modern America's most baleful traits.

I checked out for a bit, thanks JC and Gaelan.

I find the bashing of Leon Kass amusing. Apparently those doing so have never actually read anything he's written, but have instead formed their view from media reports.

Nieporent, I honestly expected better from you.

The secrecy/deception part, coupled with their intentions is what is causing all the controversy, it doesn't matter that it may or may not have been against the rules, the law or even dangerous.

I don't see how this is the case. If so, where was the outrage when Janet Evans gained an advantage by using a secret suit that greatly improved her swimming times, resulting in her winning three gold medals?

I don't see how this is the case. If so, where was the outrage when Janet Evans gained an advantage by using a secret suit that greatly improved her swimming times, resulting in her winning three gold medals?

USA! USA! USA! Take that you commie bastards!

Seriously, this is the first I've heard about Janet Evans' secret suit. Where the hell have I been?

If so, where was the outrage when Janet Evans gained an advantage by using a secret suit that greatly improved her swimming times, resulting in her winning three gold medals?

Did wearing that suit somehow pose a health risk?

There's your answer.

I saw a special on Duesberg a few months ago that was pretty interesting. Any time someone as accomplished in his field as he was comes out with a position so opposed to mainstream thought in the area, it should at least make you think. I suppose it is the same self-confidence that has him taking a similarly strong position in his cancer theories.

Fascinating guy, anyway.

Any time someone as accomplished in his field as he was comes out with a position so opposed to mainstream thought in the area, it should at least make you think.

That's the bizarre part. He staked out an area arpart from the mainstream, which was fine, at first.

But as more data came in refuting him, all he did was dig in his heels deeper and deeper until his explanations regarding data that refuted him became so bizarre, you would have to assume he had lost his mind.

He was saying that AIDS was caused by drug abuse, specifically, poppers (inhaled amphetamines and cocaine).

Which is completely absurd. Even back in the eighties, before the advent of anti-viral drugs, everyone in the community knew HIV was the culprit. Now that the triple-combo therapy has worked, he's looking very foolish indeed.

What made it worse is that he appealed to people prone to conspiracy theories, which made treatment for at-risk folks all the more difficult. The guy became a public menace.

Did wearing that suit somehow pose a health risk?

that wasn't what he was saying, he asked

I don't see how this is the case. If so, where was the outrage when Janet Evans gained an advantage by using a secret suit that greatly improved her swimming times, resulting in her winning three gold medals?

in response to my comment

The secrecy/deception part, coupled with their intentions is what is causing all the controversy, it doesn't matter that it may or may not have been against the rules, the law or even dangerous.

which is maybe a valid point. My only real reaction is "It's just a suit, even though it may have given benefits and helped, fans don't think of clothes as that important"

or another comment could have been, fans of the particular sport care about it, casual fans don't and since swimming isn't nearly as popular the outrage would have been drowned out by chants of USA!USA!USA!

I don't really think that the controversy is about potential health risks, at least not to a particular athlete. The potential health risk argument is a lot deeper than how it affects the person who is taking it. My point was that the secrecy followed by intent fuels the argument more than anything else.


Even if it's proven that HGH didn't help one iota, there will still be people clamoring for asterisks etc, who won't listen to evidence(not saying this is the case, it's a what if exercise) and still blast the era as the roid era and will never accept some peoples numbers.

Did wearing that suit somehow pose a health risk?

There's your answer.

Perhaps, but that is not the argument I was responding to. Cardsfanboy (and I believe Andy in another thread) argues that the secrecy causes the outrage. I believe the implication is that this secrecy distorts and/or corrupts the competition. I don't agree, as deception has occured before without the outrage (though I think Shooty* probably nails it post 47).

The health reasoning is different, of course.

* By the way Shooty, are you an official candidate, or do I need to write you in on the ballot?

for goodness sakes

it is ok for janet evans to have used secret fibers for a secret suit in secret which gave her an unfair advantage over everyone else because

- no one cares about swimming
- she's ugly
- it didn't make her physically LARGER anywhere

it is pretty simple

oh yeah

and it's not baseball and besides who gives a **** what some stupid ugly female does. unless she uses roids and becomes more male and might could get so good that she might could posibly compete with males. or unless she is in balco with barry lamar bonds lets not forget THAT.

Generally, I respect you: you're smart, your argumentative, you're well-reasoned. But you have this tendency to lie and smear which is utterly disgusting. Leon Kass is no nut: you wish you were as smart and accomplished as he. The Commission he led was nearly universally applauded for its "reason" and balance (see for instance the article in Dissent on it), even if it produced positions different from ones you hold. Please post to where Kass opposes organ transplants. Please. Wait, I'll better you and point to where he explicitly says they're fine:

I don't know which circles you travel in, where you think it was "nearly universally applauded" -- let alone for its "balance." In the circles I travel in, it was pointed to as a group of people mostly pre-selected to reach conclusions favored by Kass, with people like Elizabeth Blackburn marginalized because they didn't support Kass's positions.

(I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be impressed by Dissent's endorsement of the commission. (By the way, the only mention I see of it on their site is this brief discussion in a book review. Did you have something else in mind?) Is it because they're politically on the left? But that just shows the poverty, as Virginia Postrel among many others has pointed out, of looking at everything through the lens of a left-right divide. On many issues -- those addressed by the bioethics commission in particular -- segments of the left and right are both (to use Postrel's term) stasists. You won't find quite so much praise for the commission's "balance" in, say, Cato publications.)


As for his position on organ transplants, I concede that I remembered his position wrong. He does oppose many life-extending medical treatments -- in fact, he often opposes the very notion of life-extending medical treatment -- but not organ transplants, which he very reluctantly accepts, despite finding them "revolting." I guess I was remembering the fact that he categorically rejects the only feasible way to actually make them possible -- compensating people for them.

That having been said, the fact that he's undeniably smart does not mean he's not nutty. (Yes, I know he doesn't use the word "sinful" for his ice cream position; doesn't make the argument less nutty.) Nor do I think that his "wisdom of revulsion" worldview is particularly thoughtful.


EDIT: I see your apology in post 37; don't worry about it. I don't take things here said personally.

How about the various keel-related controversies in yachting? Or the similarly-obscure Nascar violations that all seem to involve millimeters of metal?

I find the bashing of Leon Kass amusing. Apparently those doing so have never actually read anything he's written, but have instead formed their view from media reports.

Nieporent, I honestly expected better from you.

Would it help if I had read his Towards a More Natural Science at one time? (I recognize that he wrote that a long time ago, so he might have changed some of his views since then; my knowledge of things he has said more recently have generally come from the media, though at least not the mass media. I'm sure I've read some shorter essays of his, but none of his books.) I've also read things written by people trying to defend his ideas; let's just say I find those rather unconvincing.

Did wearing that suit somehow pose a health risk?

There's your answer.

No, it isn't, because the question was specifically about the statement, "The secrecy/deception part, coupled with their intentions is what is causing all the controversy, it doesn't matter that it may or may not have been against the rules, the law or even dangerous." You really need to learn to read before you let your knee jerk.

I find the bashing of Leon Kass amusing.

Given his views on women and sexuality, I find it unavoidable.

it is ok for janet evans to have used secret fibers for a secret suit in secret which gave her an unfair advantage over everyone else because

- no one cares about swimming
- she's ugly
- it didn't make her physically LARGER anywhere

I don't think so at all. The secret suit falls in the category of "outsmarting the opposition" which is celebrated if legal (fosbury flop), and tolerated with mild penalty if not (doctoring baseballs, corking bats). More egregious categories are spying (Patriots taping practices, stealing signs), and worst of all, physically changing the body of the athlete (steroids).

and worst of all, physically changing the body of the athlete (steroids).

...with illegal and dangerous substances.

Leon Kass is the guy who when Bush asked him to provide someone who could provide an opposing viewpoint to Kass's for the president's decision on stem cells, Kass provided a friend who shared his own viewpoint. And he thinks ethics derives from bible stories.

I don't see how this is the case. If so, where was the outrage when Janet Evans gained an advantage by using a secret suit that greatly improved her swimming times, resulting in her winning three gold medals?

This is the first I've heard of this situation. I certainly consider that cheating and think that those medals shouldn't count.

One of the reasons the Olympics aren't very interesting is that in so many events it comes down to technology. What's exciting about watching someone break a world record if they are only doing so because they have better stuff? I remember watching Nordic Skiing one year and listening to the announcers spend half their time talking about who had the best wax that day. I don't know about the rest of you but watching a wax competition isn't what I have in mind when I think of athletic competition.

And he thinks ethics derives from bible stories.

I had never heard of him before today. So I looked him up on Wikipedia and here is what it says (in somewhat butchered English) concerning the idea that ethics "derives from bible stories."

Kass makes the claim that reason or science cannot provide "moral and political standards sufficient for governing civic life and of guiding the proper use of power and technique." See the related Argument from morality. Kass interprets the story as a metaphor, however. All of this informs his views on bioethics, according to the quoted version of the lecture. Elsewhere Kass expresses a strong faith that the potential of biological science is limited and will never provide answers to certain questions.

All of this is beyond doubt to the reasoning mind and while I know that many think it is lunacy that is merely a reflection of their own madness with regard their relationship to technology and the ability of scientific reason to provide ethical or moral judgements. You don't have to believe in the old testament to recognize the truth of Kass' position here and you only have to be literate to recognize that it is not a fundamentalist or dogmatic view.

This is the first I've heard of this situation. I certainly consider that cheating and think that those medals shouldn't count.

Well, you're consistent. Loony, but consistent.

One of the reasons the Olympics aren't very interesting is that in so many events it comes down to technology. What's exciting about watching someone break a world record if they are only doing so because they have better stuff? I remember watching Nordic Skiing one year and listening to the announcers spend half their time talking about who had the best wax that day. I don't know about the rest of you but watching a wax competition isn't what I have in mind when I think of athletic competition.

Despite my stance on steroids, I don't have a fundamental problem with this argument, as long as you realize it's an aesthetic argument rather than a moral one. Evans was not "cheating." If there were a rule that said, "Suits must be made in such-and-such fashion" (or )and she violated that rule, that would be a different story. But there wasn't, which means that it's just intelligent strategy. Trying to gain an advantage is not antithetical to the spirit of the competition; it is the spirit of the competition.

But as more data came in refuting him, all he did was dig in his heels deeper and deeper until his explanations regarding data that refuted him became so bizarre, you would have to assume he had lost his mind.

That happens to theoretical physicists not too infrequently as well- though the only consequences in most of those cases is that they prematurely fade from their profession...

I don't know about the rest of you but watching a wax competition isn't what I have in mind when I think of athletic competition.

Don't watch much beach volleyball, huh?

As stated, Kass finds wisdom in the Book of Genesis. For example, he has more than once given a lecture on the Tower of Babel story, in which he argues that the "sky-scraping tower" has to fall because it implies a secular form of society. Kass makes the claim that reason or science cannot provide "moral and political standards sufficient for governing civic life and of guiding the proper use of power and technique." See the related Argument from morality. Kass interprets the story as a metaphor, however. All of this informs his views on bioethics, according to the quoted version of the lecture. Elsewhere Kass expresses a strong faith that the potential of biological science is limited and will never provide answers to certain questions.

[edit] Views on women and sexual morality

Kass begins his essay "The End of Courtship" by asserting that the left and right in America have started to produce a consensus on some issues of sexual morality, coming to view "the break-up of marriage as a leading cause of the neglect, indeed, of the psychic and moral maiming, of America's children." The rest of the essay concerns what he sees as obstacles to lasting marriage, including feminism. Kass treats modesty in women as a very important element of sexual morality. "The supreme virtue of the virtuous woman was modesty, a form of sexual self-control, manifested not only in chastity but in decorous dress and manner, speech and deed, and in reticence in the display of her well-banked affections." Kass argues that when women behave with modesty, they are better able to achieve their own "genuine longings and best interests," and that female modesty also helps men to control lustful desires in favor of love and "real intimacy."

In the same essay Kass attacks the use of birth control technology, and states that any woman's destiny is motherhood. The author expresses strong doubt that "courtship" can ever return, since this "would appear to require a revolution". He says that the social changes stem from the nature of modernity, and from the biological nature of men. But he bemoans the changes because he sees marriage and procreation as central to the good life for the vast majority -- perhaps for all of humanity. The essay contains one explicit reference to homosexuality, as one of the "sexual abominations of Leviticus—incest, homosexuality, and bestiality". A footnote also mentions aging bachelors and their "self-indulgent" ways.

Well, it's a good thing we have Wikipedia to summarize others' arguments for us. If it's on Wiki, it's got to be right, right?

Well, it's a good thing we have Wikipedia to summarize others' arguments for us. If it's on Wiki, it's got to be right, right?

Only for complex philosophical positions.

(Though I'm pretty sure Kass's "Yuck" isn't a philosophical position.)

(Though I'm pretty sure Kass's "Yuck" isn't a philosophical position.)

Now casting Nieporent as Sir Archibald Jumper.

Alou -- I don't think so. But I'm not joking about Kass; he calls it the "wisdom of repugnance." I just think "Yuck" sums it up less wordily.

Well, it's a good thing we have Wikipedia to summarize others' arguments for us. If it's on Wiki, it's got to be right, right?

What portion of the last two paragraphs quoted in #67 do you consider misrepresentative of Kass' position in the essay? It seems pretty neutral to me, and I have read the essay for myself. It's not like Wikipedia is saying he's a nutjob, or has ridiculous positions.

There's not much in this particular essay that is very revolutionary; it's in lockstep with a traditional moralistic position on female sexuality and male self-control, although it is more eloquently presented than usual.

Unrelated to this particular essay, the philosophy of "wisdom of repugnance" is, in my opinion, not only an unreasonable position, but a dangerous one. I don't need wikipedia to tell me where that sort of thinking can lead.

I was really connecting your quote of Wiki to DMN's obvious reliance upon it for his misrepresentations and characterizations of Kass's thought. As I said, he's extremely thoughtful and thought-provoking, and like any such thinker, his arguments must be countered with argument, and not stupid characterizations a la DMN.

* By the way Shooty, are you an official candidate, or do I need to write you in on the ballot?

For American states, I'm a write-in, but I'm on the ballot on several other states, foreign, intangible and imaginary. My favorite state is Big Rock Candy Mountain where the cops all have wooden legs. I campaign there a lot.

Shooty, I don't know why, but that made me laugh. Nice one...

I thought Dissent and Commentary had merged to form Dysentery.

Alou -- I don't think so. But I'm not joking about Kass; he calls it the "wisdom of repugnance." I just think "Yuck" sums it up less wordily.

DN, I'm well aware of what the man thinks, and what you meant. And, while I'm normally sympathetic to your arguments, I think dismising this as "[not] a philosophical position" is not only foolish, but makes you seem like a rather objectionable character out of a Tom Stoppard play.

I was really connecting your quote of Wiki to DMN's obvious reliance upon it for his misrepresentations and characterizations of Kass's thought. As I said, he's extremely thoughtful and thought-provoking, and like any such thinker, his arguments must be countered with argument, and not stupid characterizations a la DMN.

Not only did I not "rely on" it, but I didn't even look at it.

I was really connecting your quote of Wiki to DMN's obvious reliance upon it for his misrepresentations and characterizations of Kass's thought. As I said, he's extremely thoughtful and thought-provoking, and like any such thinker, his arguments must be countered with argument, and not stupid characterizations a la DMN.

Be careful with your attributions. That isn't my quote.

It's not your quote of Wiki? What is it?

An article on the Fost-Pound debate
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20080115-1839-dopingdebate.html

Eddie: Radley Balko, who participated in that debate, recapped it briefly here.

Is that Radley Balko, or Radley BALKO? Seems like it's a code name to me.

Smirk. I never made that connection, Ray.

It's not your quote of Wiki? What is it?

ValueArb quoted Wikipedia, not me. If I quote Wiki, I'll make it clear that I'm posting from there as opposed to a less-easily modified source.

That's not to say that Wikipedia isn't ever useful as a source of general, quick and dirty information. I just would be reluctant to base an opinion of someone solely on their Wiki page. Which is why I read "The End of Courtship" for myself. I'm not going to buy a Leon Kass book but I'm willing to read anything that's a reasonable length on the internet that's directly attributed to him if you think I'm selling him short.

I did not find him to be putting forward a particularly interesting argument in that particular essay. This isn't some groundbreaking stuff.

Apologies. You all look the same to me.

well, if that is NOT leon kass' direct quote about female human beings and he in fact did not make those unspeakably offensive remarks about female modesty etc, please give link to direct quote.

thank you

and i can't imagine a worse hell than being forced to pretend to be "modest" like that gets rid of female sexual interst and male lust/interest in other females/female prostitutes

Apologies. You all look the same to me.

No need to apologize. You could just answer the question.

What about the quoted paragraphs is a misrepresentation or misleading characterization of Kass' thoughts?

and i can't imagine a worse hell than being forced to pretend to be "modest" like that gets rid of female sexual interst and male lust/interest in other females/female prostitutes

You tramp. :)

crosby,

sigh

seems too many times females are enslaved/degraded by law as much as by violence. one way is not better than the other

and as for staying married together forever whether or not you want to - well, being forced to be raped/live with someone you hate your whole life isn't a great solution neither. just because people didn't hardly ever get divorced didn't mean they lived happily ever after

and as for staying married together forever whether or not you want to - well, being forced to be raped/live with someone you hate your whole life isn't a great solution neither. just because people didn't hardly ever get divorced didn't mean they lived happily ever after

All you need for exhibit A in your case is some video from my relationship with my ex-wife.

EDIT: Just noticed the word "raped" there. There was no rape in my relationship, unless you count my checking account.

All you need for exhibit A in your case is some video from my relationship with my ex-wife.

Can you post it on Youtube? I'm not doing anything right now.

I wish I had some. I could look back on it whenever I am unhappy and take comfort in the fact that I'm no longer there.