3 ms·

I think what your trying to say can be more abstractly put as "the ends justify the means". > Rules in society are also pretty stupid. If you mean laws than n

by agentgt 11y ago

I think what your trying to say can be more abstractly put as "the ends justify the means". > Rules in society are also pretty stupid. If you mean laws than no.. they are not stupid. Killing people and getting away with it is bad. And some of the "rules" in wall street if broken can have an equally horrific impact. And that comes back to the question do the ends justify the means? Sometimes it does for sure. For Armstrong it could be argued it did.

coliveira 11y ago
The other side of the question is this: should society respect people who believe that the end justify the means? I believe the answer to that should be clearly no. So, yes, sometimes you can get what you want by cheating. Should I understand or even respect this? Of course not. Society should be willing to go against anyone who believes and acts on this kind of ideas.
unabst 11y ago
By "stupid" I mean unintelligent, premature, arbitrary, and weak. Rules such as "don't kill thy neighbor" are pretty obvious and don't need to be law for most people to get it. But being imprisoned for smoking weed when alcohol is legal is almost as "stupid" as a moving pick or doping. Those who get away with it have an advantage. Those that don't get pulled over by a man in stripes blowing a whistle. Then rules change, as they should, but that doesn't reverse the "stupid" past. Not killing comes naturally. Referees are not very natural, but we need them to uphold rules that don't come naturally. Rules don't have to be bad to be stupid or somewhat arbitrary, and they do shape the game/society. But cycling definitely was a stupid game knowing what we all know now. Almost as stupid as pro-wrestling, but at least they don't hide it, which makes them far more respectable than cycling ever was. Armstrong could only do what he did with the higher-ups knowing, and with the leverage he had against them and the entire sport. No one idolizes the International Cycling Union[1] as one does an athlete, but they made the beast that was Lance Armstrong. The takeaway is that it's wrong to look just at the players. When cheating is a prerequisite to success, it's often the game that is already rigged. --- [1] http://www.foxsports.com/cycling/story/investigation-international-cycling-union-allowed-lance-armstrong-to-cheat-but-no-evidence-of-payments-for-cover-up-030815 http://www.foxsports.com/cycling/story/investigation-interna...

by agentgt 11y ago

coliveira 11y ago

The other side of the question is this: should society respect people who believe that the end justify the means? I believe the answer to that should be clearly no. So, yes, sometimes you can get what you want by cheating. Should I understand or even respect this? Of course not. Society should be willing to go against anyone who believes and acts on this kind of ideas.

unabst 11y ago

By "stupid" I mean unintelligent, premature, arbitrary, and weak. Rules such as "don't kill thy neighbor" are pretty obvious and don't need to be law for most people to get it. But being imprisoned for smoking weed when alcohol is legal is almost as "stupid" as a moving pick or doping. Those who get away with it have an advantage. Those that don't get pulled over by a man in stripes blowing a whistle. Then rules change, as they should, but that doesn't reverse the "stupid" past. Not killing comes naturally. Referees are not very natural, but we need them to uphold rules that don't come naturally. Rules don't have to be bad to be stupid or somewhat arbitrary, and they do shape the game/society. But cycling definitely was a stupid game knowing what we all know now. Almost as stupid as pro-wrestling, but at least they don't hide it, which makes them far more respectable than cycling ever was. Armstrong could only do what he did with the higher-ups knowing, and with the leverage he had against them and the entire sport. No one idolizes the International Cycling Union[1] as one does an athlete, but they made the beast that was Lance Armstrong. The takeaway is that it's wrong to look just at the players. When cheating is a prerequisite to success, it's often the game that is already rigged. --- [1] http://www.foxsports.com/cycling/story/investigation-international-cycling-union-allowed-lance-armstrong-to-cheat-but-no-evidence-of-payments-for-cover-up-030815 http://www.foxsports.com/cycling/story/investigation-interna...